Skip to main content

Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

See other formats


7SZ70Z 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 

The Official Organ of 

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

VOLUME 38 



LONDON: 

Printed by Order of the International Trust for 
Zoological Nomenclature 

and 

Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological 

Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publication Office, 

c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, 

London SW7 5BD 

1981 

(All rights reserved) 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 III 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 



Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: 

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications 
published \n the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature . ... 1 

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain 

cases 1 

(c) Receipt of new applications 1 

Special announcements 2 

Financial Report 1979, and Accounts of the International Trust for 

Zoological Nomenclature 3 

On the proposed neotype designation for Calymene variolaris 

Brongniart, 1822 (Trilobita) (G. Hahn) 6 

On the proposed designations of type species of Anaspis Miiller, 

1764, etc. (I.M. Kerzhner, F.C. Thompson & The Secretary) 6 

On the proposed rejection of Lacepede's Histoire Naturelle des 

Serpens (J.M. Savage) 8 

On the proposed conservation of A^etta5tome//a 1865 (Bivalvia) .... 9 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of vote on 

proposals for substantive amendments (third instalment) 

(The Secretary) 10 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of vote on 

proposals for substantive amendments (fourth instalment) 

(The Secretary) 16 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of vote on 

proposals for substantive amendments (fifth instalment) 

(The Secretary) 30 

Opinion 1162. Schizoneura meunieri Heie, 1969 (Insecta, Hemiptera): 

conserved under the plenary powers 49 

Opinion 1163. Conus molluccensis (MoUusca, Gastropoda) is available 

as from the work of Kiister, 1838 52 

Opinion 1164. Refusal of request to suppress Calomicrus taeniatus 

Wollaston, 1867 (Insecta, Coleoptera) 57 

Opinion 1165. Scytale niger Daudin, 1803 (Reptilia, Serpentes): 

suppressed 61 

Opinion 1166. Liparthrum Wollaston, 1854 (Coleoptera, Scolytidae): 

conserved 64 

Opinion 1167. Phloeosinus Chapuis, 1869 (Coleoptera, Scolytidae): 

conserved 67 

Opinion 1168. Cacatua ducorpsii Pucheran, 1853 (Aves): conserved 69 

Opinion 1169. Cataphractus punctatus Bloch, 1794 (Pisces): lectotype 

designation approved 72 

Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea): proposed 

designation of a type species (The Secretary) 74 

Request for a change in Article 40 of the Code (M.H. Pettibone) 76 



IV Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: 

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature . ... 77 

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain 

cases 77 

(c) Receipt of new applications 78 

Special announcement 78 

On the proposal on Dactylopius and Pseudococcus with additional 

proposal to suppress Coccus adonidum Linnaeus, 1767 and 
Pediculus coffeae Linnaeus, 1767 and for validation of Dactylopius 
longispinus Targioni-Tozzetti , 1867 (Insecta: Homoptera) 
(E.M. Danzig, I.M. Kerzhner & D.R. Miller) 79 

On the proposed designation of a type species for Gnathodus Pander, 
1856 (Conodonta) (H. Kozur, H.R. Lane & W. Ziegler; replies 
by H. Kozur & I.S. Barskov) 83 

On the proposed amendments to the International Code of Zoological 

Nomenclature regarding ichnotaxa (G. Hahn & The Secretary) . 93 

Opinion 1170. SATURNIIDAE Boisduval, 1837 (Lepidoptera) placed 

on Official List 95 

Opinion 1171. The stem of the generic name Petromyzon Linnaeus, 

1758 (Pisces) is Petromyzont- 98 

Opinion 1172. Ascidia intestinalis Linnaeus, 1767 (Tunicata) conserved 100 

Opinion 1173. The type species of Hiltermannicythere Bassiouni, 1970 

(Crustacea, Ostracoda) is Cythereis turbida Miiller, 1894 102 

Opinion 1 174. The type species oi Atractocera Meigen, 1803 (Diptera) is 

Tipula regelationis Linnaeus, 1758 105 

Opinion 1175. Monstrilla intermedia Kriczagin, 1877 (Copepoda) 

suppressed 107 

Opinion 1176. Echis colorata [sic] Guenther, 1878 (Reptilia, Serpentes) 
given nomenclatural precedence over Echis froenata [sic] 
Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854 110 

Opinion 1177. Cossmannella Mayer- Eymar, 1896 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) 

designation of type species 112 

Opinion 1178. Megasternum Mulsant, 1844, and Cryptopleurum 

Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera): type species determined 114 

Opinion 1179. Polydrusus Germar, 1817 and Phyllobius Germar, 1824 

(Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved in accordance with current usage 117 

Opinion 1180. Thamnophilus amazonicus Sclater, 1858 (Aves) 

conserved 120 

Opinion 1181. Microdryas Laseron, 1950 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) 

designation of a type species 122 

Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924 (Acarina): proposals to clarify name of 
the type species and to conserve name of an important pest 
species (P.L. Robertson) 125 

Manati Stellar, 1774 and Trichechus exunguis (Natterer in Diesing, 
1839) (MammaHa, Sirenia): proposal to place these names on 
Official Indexes of Rejected and Invahd Names in Zoology 
(D.L. Domning) 130 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed 

designation of type species (A. Waren) 134 

Nepa cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Heteroptera, Nepidae): 

proposed conservation (I. M. Kerzhner) 138 

Eutermes exitiosus Hill, 1925 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed conservation 

(J.A.L. Watson & F.J. Gay) 142 

Cocciis Linnaeus, 1758 and Parthenolecanium §ulc, 1908 (Insecta, 
Homoptera, Coccidae): proposed designation of type species 
(E.M. Danzig & I. M. Kerzhner) 147 

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: 

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on appUcations published 

\n\.\\e Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153 

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain 

cases 153 

(c) Receipt of new applications 153 

Special Announcements 154 

On the authorship of the family name METRIDIIDAE (Coelenterata, 

Anthozoa)(R.B. Williams) 156 

On SPHAERIIDAE in Mollusca and Insecta: proposals to remove the 

homonymy (P.J. Spangler, Y.I. Starobogatov & J.G.J. Kuiper) 157 

On the concepts of paranomenclature: further comments (R.W. 

Huddleston) 161 

Constitution, Article 3: proposed new method for determining the term 

of service of members of the Commission. Report of 

Subcommittee appointed at Helsinki (The Secretary) 163 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: deferment of 

proposal to introduce provisions to regulate paranomenclature 

(The Secretary) 166 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: result of vote on 

proposals for substantive amendments (fifth instalment) (The 

Secretary) 168 

Opinion 1182. TETHYIDAE in Mollusca, Porifera and Tunicata: 

removal of the homonymy 174 

Opinion 1183. Terebratula lineata Young & Bird. 1828, and 

Rhynchonella subconcinna Davidson, 1852 (Brachiopoda): 

designation of neotypes 178 

Opinion 1184. Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936, given nomenclatural 

precedence over Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922 (Nematoda) 182 

Opinion 1185. Simrothiella Pilsbry, 1898 (Mollusca, Solenogastres): 

designation of a type species 185 

Opinion 1186. Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] (Reptilia) 

conserved 188 

Opinion 1187. Ophiolepis Miiller & Troschel, 1840 (Ophiuroidea): 

designation of type species 191 

TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conservation (W. 

Presch) 194 

Generic name Ahuaiitlea de la Llave, 1832 (Insecta, Heteroptera, 

Corixidae): proposed suppression (A. Jansson) 197 



VI Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



Proposed use of the plenary powers to grant precedence to the family- 
group name EPHYDRIDAE over HYDRELLIIDAE (Insecta, 
Diptera)(W.N. Mathis) 201 

Nabis capsiformis Germar, [1838] (Insecta, Heteroptera, Nabidae): 
proposed conservation under the plenary powers (I.M. 
Kerzhner) 205 

Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, and 
Campanularia Lamarck, 1816 (Coelenterata, Hydroida): 
proposed designations of type species by use of the plenary 
powers, and comments on related genera (P. F.S. Cornelius) . 208 

Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799 (Insecta, Plecoptera): additional steps 

needed to conserve this name (The Secretary) 221 

Nomioides Schenck, 1866: proposed designation of type species 
Insecta, Hymenoptera, Halictidae). (Y.A. Pesenko & I.M. 
Kerzhner) 225 

Corrections to data of three family-group names of butterflies on the 

official hst (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (C.F. Cowan) 228 

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: 

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .... 229 

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain 

cases 229 

(c) List of new applications 229 

Special announcements 230 

Financial Report, 1980 and Accounts of the International Trust for 

Zoological Nomenclature 233 

Comment on the proposed suppression of Rafinesque, 1822, "On the 

turtles of the United States" (L.B. Holthuis) 236 

Comment on the proposed conservation of Anemia Leach, 1819 

(Crustacea, Branchiopoda) (L.B. Holthuis) 237 

Comment on a request for a change in Article 40 of the Code (W.O. 

Cernohorsky) 237 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of Second 

Vote on proposals on Parataxa (The Secretary) 238 

Opinion 1188. Aphis pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841 (Insecta, 

Hemiptera) conserved 239 

Opinion 1189. CIRCINAE in Aves and MoUusca: removal of the 

homonymy 243 

Opinion 1190. Pterois zebra Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829 

(Pisces, Scorpaenidae) placed on the official list 247 

Opinion 1191. Berytus consimilis Horvath, 1855 (Hemiptera, 

Berytinidae); lectotype designation confirmed 249 

Opinion 1192. Lecanium acuminatum Signoret, 1873 (Insecta, 

Homoptera, Coccidae): neotype designated 252 

Opinion 1193. Ceratophysella Borner, 1932 (Insecta, Collembola) 

conserved 254 

Opinion 1194. Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766 (Bryozoa): neotype 

designated 256 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 VII 



Opinion 1195. Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Gastropoda): the type 

species is P/eMrof^ru5acMfM5 Rafinesque />i Blainville, 1824 ... 259 

Opinion 1196. Beyrkhia M'Coy, 1846 (Crustacea: Ostracoda): 

designation of type species and of neotype for that species .... 266 

Opinion 1197. Cypraea piperita Gray, 1825, C. comptonii Gray, 1847, 

C. bicolor Gaskoin, 1849 and C. angustata Gmelin, 1791 

(Gastropoda): placed on the Official List 270 

Opinion 1198. Sminthopsis murina var. constricta Spencer, 1896 

(Mammaha, Marsupialia) suppressed 274 

Direction 109. Seven family-group names in Insecta, Heteroptera 

placed on Official List 276 

Direction 110. Ixodes Latreille, 1795 (Arachnida, Acarina): entry in 

Official List of generic names confirmed 280 

Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia, Lacertilia): proposed designation 

of a type species by use of the plenary powers (The Secretary) . 283 

Comment on the proposal that Chromis Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814 and 

generic names ending in -chromis be ruled to be masculine (W.I. 

Follett & L.J. Dempster) 284 

Typus Seilards, 1909 (Insecta, Protodonata): proposed 

conservation under plenary powers (F.M. Carpenter & 

P. Whalley) 285 

Comment on the proposed conservation of the generic name Typus 

Seilards, 1909 (Insecta, Protodonata) (D.L.F. Sealy) 286 

Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 and Lygaeus quadripunctatus Fabricius, 

1794 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Heteroptera): proposed nomenclatural 

variation (I.M. Kerzhner) 288 

Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Coleoptera, Byrrhidae): 

proposed conservation (M. Mroczkowski) 292 

Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia): proposals 

to clarify the type species of the genus (G.H. Brown) 294 

Alpheus lottini Guerin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed 

conservation (A.R. Banner & D.M. Banner) 297 

Comment on the proposed conservation of Alpheus lottini Guerin, 

1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda) (L.B. Holthuis) 303 



VIII Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 

The Trust (Registered Charity No. 211944) will shortly be 
launching a world-wide appeal for more funds for the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 

The Commission has to plan for expansion to meet the 
growing demand for its work and for the needs of zoologists in the 
developing countries. It must be able to maintain its reliable service 
to all zoologists and paleontologists. 

Readers are invited to help make this forthcoming appeal a 
success by agreeing to assist in one or more of the following ways: 

1 — to give a donation 

2 — to subscribe to the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- 

clature 

3 — to supply the name and address of anyone they know 

who may be wiUing to give financial assistance or to 

whom an approach may be made. 
The address to send help in the way suggested, or for any 
further information, is: 

Dr F.G.W. Jones, Managing Director and Secretary, 
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 
c/o British Museum (Natural History), 
Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, United Kingdom 







Volume 38, Part 1 ISSN 0007 - 5167 

pp i-iv 1 - 76 26th February 1981 



kC^'^^l 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL"^^ 
NOMENCLATURE 

The Official Organ of 

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



LONDON 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
c/o British Museum (Natural History) 
Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD 

Price £10.00 

(All rights reserved) 



ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ^ ^,. ^^^ 






THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ff 4 

A. The Officers of the Commission \Pc, ^«. 

President: Dr. C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA cjo" 

National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.). 
Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, 

S-223 62, Lund, Sweden). 
Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell 

Road, London SW7 5BD). 
Assistant Secretary: Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), 

Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD). 

B. The Members of the Commission 

(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) 

Prof. T. HABE (National Science Museum, 3-23-1 Department of Marine 

Science, Tokai University, 1000 Orido Shimuzu City 424 Japan (20 

February 1972) Marine Biology 
Mr. David \{E??ELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, 

Edinburgh EHl IJF, Scotland) (20 February \912) (Councillor) Mollusca 
Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London 

SW7 5BD) (20 February 1 972) (Assistant Secretary) Lepidoptera 
Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, 

Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972) 

Neotropical Hymenoptera 
Prof. Enrico TORTONESE (Istituto Zooprofilattico, Lungo Bisagno Dalmazia 

45A, 16141, Genova, Italy) (30 September, 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata 
Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, 

Sweden) (30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology 
Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de 

Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) 

Echinoidea; Asteroidea 
Prof. E. BINDER (Museum dHistoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, 

Switzerland) (30 September 1972) Mollusca 
Prof. Harold E. YOKES (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New 

Orleans, Louisiana 70118, U.S.A.) (30 September 1972) Mollusca 
Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Postbus 9517, 

2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) 

Crustacea 
Dr. G. BERNARDI (Musiiim National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 bis rue de Buffon, 

75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Lepidoptera 
Prof. C. bUPUIS (Museum National dHistoire Naturelle, 5 7 rue Cuvier, 75231, 

Paris, Cedex 05 France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera 
Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Instytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk, 

ul. Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975) Coleoptera 
Prof. H.E. WELCH (Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, 
Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2 Canada) (17 March 1976) Nematoda 
Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 

Hamburg 13, Germany) (29 September 1976) Arachnida, Myriapoda 



u 

Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (College Fellow in Life Sciences, School of Applied Science, 

Canberra College of Advanced Education, P.O. Box I, Belconnen, A.C.T. 

2616, Australia) (29 September 1976) (Councillor) Mammalia: Recent 

and Fossil 
Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. 

National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (29 September 

1976) (President) Diptera 
Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) 

(29 September 1976) Reptilia; E D P Methods 
Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitdtsgebiet 

Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) (27 December 1978) Palaeontology 
Prof. Dr. 0. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of 

Tromso, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsb, Norway) (27 December 1978) 

Parasitology 
Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN, (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 

B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology 
Dr. P.M. BAYERiU.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 

20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Octocorallia; Systematics 
Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 

20742, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics 
Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, 

London SW7 5BD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology 
Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute. Academy of Sciences, 

Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea 
Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN, (Department of Zoology, University of Turku. SF-20500 

Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida 



INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

A. The Members of the Trust 
Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) 
Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) 
Dr. J.H. Callomon, F.R.I.C. 
Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. 
Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. 
Mon. J. Forest 

Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. 
Dr. R.H. Hedley 
Dr. N.E. Hickin 
Dr. L.B. Holthuis 
Prof. Dr. O. Kraus 
Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S. 
Dr. C.W. Sabrosky (ex officio) 
Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. 
Dr. G.F. deWitte 
Dr. C.A. Wright (Observer) 

B. The Officer of the Trust 
Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) 



CONTENTS 



Page 



Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: 

(a) Date of commencement of voting by the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on applications 1 
^\xb'\ish.ed in i\i& Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .... 

(b) Possible use of the plenary powers of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in certain cases . . 1 

(c) Receipt of new applications 1 

Special Announcements 2 

Financial Report 1979, and Accounts of the International Trust 

for Zoological Nomenclature 3 

Comments 

On the proposed neotype designation for Calymene variolaris 

Brongniart, 1822 (Trilobita) (G. Hahn) 6 

On the proposed designations of type species of Anaspis Muller, 

1764, etc. (I.M. Kerzhner, F.C. Thompson & The Secretary) 6 

On the proposed rejection of Lacepede's Histoire Naturelle des 

Serpens (J.M. Savage) g 

On the proposed conservation of Nettastomella 9 

Commission Reports 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of vote 
on proposals for substantive amendments (third instalment) 
(The Secretary) 10 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of vote 
on proposals for substantive amendments (fourth instalment) 
(The Secretary) '. 16 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of vote 
on proposals for substantive amendments (fifth instalment) 
(The Secretary) 30 

Opinions 

Opinion 1 162. SchizoneurameunieriHeie, 1969(Insecta: Hemiptera): 

conserved under the plenary powers 49 

Opinion 1163. Conus moluccensis (Mollusca: Gastropoda) is avail- 
able as from the work of Kiister, 1838 52 

Opinion 1164. Refusal of request to suppress Calomicrus taeniatus 

Wollaston, 1867 (Insecta: Coleoptera) 57 

Opinion 1165. Scytale niger Daudin, 1803 (Reptilia, Serpentes): 

suppressed 61 

Opinion 1 166. Liparthrum Wollaston, 1854 (Coleoptera, Scolytidae): 

conserved 64 

Opinion 1 167. Phloeosinus Chapuis, 1869 (Coleoptera, Scolytidae): 

conserved 67 



Opinion 1 168. Cacatua ducurpsii Pucheran, 1853 (Aves): conserved . 69 

Opinion 1169. Cataphractus punctatus Bloch, 1794 (Pisces): lecto- 

type designation approved 72 

New and revived cases 

Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea): proposed 

designation of a type species (The Secretary) 74 

Request for a change in Article 40 of the Code (Dr. M.H. Pettibone) 75 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Volume 38, part 1 (pp. 1-76) 26 February, 1981 



NOTICES 

(a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal circum- 
stances the Commission may start to vote on applications published 
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the 
publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to 
comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited 
to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the 
Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach 
the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. 

(b) Possible use of the plenary powers. The possible use by 
the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following 
application published in this present part of the Bulletin: 

Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea): 
proposed designation of a type species. Z.N.(S.) 1437. 
The Secretary. 

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new appli- 
cations have been received since the publication of vol. 37 (4) on 4 
December, 1980. That marked with an asterisk involves the appli- 
cation of Articles 23a-b and 79b. 

*(1) Sagartia luciae Verrill, 1898 (Coelenterata, 
Actinaria): request for nomenclatural precedence. 
Z.N.(S.)2363.R.W. Seaton. 

(2) Simulium amazonicum Goeldi, 1905 (Diptera: 
Simuliidae): proposed suppression of syntypes and 
designation of neotype. Z.N.(S.) 2364. A.J. Shelley. 

(3) Puzosia Bayle, 1878 (Mollusca, Ammonoidea): 
proposed designation of a type species. Z.N.(S.)2365. 
M.R. Cooper, C.W. Wright and W.J. Kennedy. 

(4) Hyla femoralis chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 (Amphibia, 
Anura): Proposed type designation. Z.N.(S.)2366. 
H.M. Smith, K.T. Fitzgerald and L.J. Guillette, Jr. 

(5) Ecliptopera capitata Schaffer, 1839 and Psoclos 
coracina Esper, 1805 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): pro- 
posed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2367. K. Mikkola. 

(6) Bainella Rennie, 1930 (Arthropoda, Trilobita): 
proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2368. M.R. Cooper. 



2 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS 

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL 

NOMENCLATURE 

MEMBERSHIP OF THE TRUST 
We are glad to announce that Dr J.H. Callomon, F.RT.C. 
(of the Department of Chemistry, University College, London) has 
kindly agreed to serve on the Trust and was elected in November, 
1980. 

SIZE OF BULLETIN 

A number of Opinions, New Applications and Comments are 
now in proof and to speed up their publication it has been decided 
to increase the size of Bulletins, at least during 1981. Readers will 
therefore notice that this present part has twelve extra pages. This 
enlargement entails higher printing costs, but throughout 1 98 1 the 
price of the Bulletin will stay at the level already announced in 
vol. 37, part 4, namely £40 or £ 1 per part. 

FINANCIAL AND OTHER SUPPORT 

The slender finances of the Trust and the Commission are 
faced with continuing inflation and rising costs. We renew our 
appeal to all those, whether individuals, organisations or institutions 
who value the work of the Commission and find it useful, to give us 
their financial support. 

The Trust has great pleasure in announcing that Sir Peter E. 
Kent, F.R.S., Chairman of the Trust, has most kindly offered an 
interest-free loan of £2,000 towards the cost of publication of the 
Code. We are extremely grateful for his generosity. 

Under United Kingdom legislation the Trust is a registered 
charitable institution and we are pleased to announce that since 
September, 1980 we have benefited from Nat West Enterprises, 
who have kindly provided an assistant, Mr J. Barnes, to help the 
Trust's accountant on a short term basis without any charge to us. 
We are very grateful for this help. 

The Secretariat of the Commission acknowledge with grate- 
ful thanks the assistance on certain very complicated applications 
being given by Dr L.B. Holthuis, Emeritus Professor Alastair 
Graham, F.R.S. (of the Department of Zoology, University of 
Reading) and Mr R.W. Sims (British Museum (Natural History), 
London). 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

January J 981 



Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1981 



FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 1979 

During 1979 sales of the International Code, Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature, Opinions and Official Lists brought in 
£8925 (£7050 during 1978). The cost of printing the Bulletin 
was £4422 (£3813) and that of supporting services and admin- 
istration £10,440 (£5969), making a total of £14,862 (£9782). 
Increased costs arose from inflation, printing, secretarial help and 
the employment of an assistant during the preparation of the third 
edition of the Code. The last entailed much extra work for 
Mr. Melville and his small staff. The working deficit for the year 
was £5937 (£2732) which was partly covered by interest on 
reserves of £673 (£450) and donations from member countries of 
lUBS amounting to £2334 (£508). These sums reduced the work- 
ing deficit to £2930 (£1774), and the year ended with a surplus of 
£2070 (deficit £1790) and reserves of £7825 (£5755). This was 
due to a grant of £5000 from H.M. Government made by the 
Advisory Board for the Research Councils (U.K.) via the Royal 
Society, but for which the deficit would have absorbed most of 
the Trust's reserves and it would have ceased to function in 1980. 
Publication of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature would have 
terminated and there would have remained no organisation to 
complete the preparation and publication of the new edition of 
the International (Tode. 

The Trust continues to receive cost-free accommodation for 
the Commission's offices in the British Museum (Natural History) 
and the services of Mr. R.V. Melville, Mrs. M. Speak and Mr. Leonard 
at emoluments far less than they would command on the open 
market. Subject to approval, the Royal Society will pay £5000 in 
1980/81 and 1981/82, but not thereafter. Because donations from 
member countries have ceased, the $ 10,000 received from lUBS in 
1980 will represent a net gain of no more than £2166. The lUBS 
contribution will, it is hoped, continue in 1981 and 1982. There- 
after, the Trust will need at least £10,000 a year at 1980 prices 
from outside sources if it is to survive beyond 1982 on the present 
inadequate organisational basis; a very much larger sum must be 
found if the Commission's work is to be funded reahstically. Funds 
will also be required to assist with the pubhcation of the new 
edition of the Code. 

F.G.W. JONES 

Managing Director and Secretary, 

International Trust for Zoological 

1 1 November, 1 980 Nomenclature. 



Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 



•* 


>o 




vq 


q 




00 


»o 




n 


(N 




f^ 


» 










CO 







in o 
\0 ■* 


q 


5 « 


Tt d 


u-> 


(4-1 •'tn 


ir> r- 


<s 


o S 


r-_q^ 


00 


52 S 






Kn fs" 


I^ 


« o 




t^ 


1^ 



rs 


o 


(N 00 


■* 


q 


■*. °° 


^ 


OS 


d vo 


f— « 


00 


O r- 


vo 


" 


00 Tj- 





c 






fO 








_o 






s 














> 






"m 


C4 






6 






O 


'o 






o 






*; OS 

C4 U 


2 




■« 

s 

o 

3 


CO 






TS 

QUIPMENT 
during the y 


Q 

S 

3 
u 
o 


00 

H 
on 


u 

X 

<u 

o 
•a 


e4 

X 

.s 

c 

C 




M U c 


< 


"O 


a 


ea 


^ 


ASS 
ICE 

iitio 


< 




«3 

c 

3 


s 

o 

o 

c 


(0 


H 
Z 


>< ° 




;3 


O 

E 

<; 


45 


;3 


E 




u 








o 



« .E 



tr o oi 



."S 


CO 


"O 


c 


u 


o 


Ui 




u 


D, 


>. 


■c 


•a 


o 

c« 


c 


X) 


3 


3 


00 


CO 



> 

> w 

(ij en 
on oi 



ON « 

— Q 

X) 0\ 

6C 

2^ 



> O 

ta 



U CO 

y 3 



m on 



S o 



w pa 



O T3 
Oh 5 



0\ 



■* o 

Tj- ON 



O X> 
O *j 
O 

a 



(U 



CO 



X! ca 






Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1981 



t- o 






2 


w 

z 


O 






13 


H 


o 


< 
U 


4^ '5i 

^ o 


pq 


•a N ^ 


D 


C ^^H « 


a. 


.2 o c«3 


bu 


§-^ § 2 


O 




a> =3 -=3 U2 


(/D 


w 


£mOO 


J 


<: 





w 
OH 

g W cu 
H H Q 

2^< 

Q s m 



r~ On -t , 


O 00 o o 


f^ O '-H 1 


>/^ O lo o 


00 -^ 


o >o m ,^ 



t^ 


o o 


o 




l/^ 


■* o 


■"I- 




^ 


d 


d 




^ 


t~ 


t~ 




00 


o^ 


o_ 












■* 


ri 


ri 








<t4 





VO VO O 
M rt O 
d 00 u-j 

0\ ro r~ 

OO^^tT 



<N 


O m 


00 


00 o\ 


<n 


-^ in 


o 


(S CO 


■* 


■* 






d" 


•* 



(U 



X ^ 

2 S 

H.2 



2^ c8 CO m 

s 5 ^ i? ^ 

S .2i •*^ <u « 
S C C o •« 

< 13U^ 3 



3 



c o .2 



nj 2 



. c« 



<- 3 

o< 



C ;3 

■•3 ^ 

P. 



H 
U 

So w 
Sew 

00 ^ w 

CO ^ 

>hu oa 

wg o 

5 W T3 

c^< fc 

On « 

►-) z u 

jO z 

PU CO ■*'! 

»:; 00 J 

;20 < 

CO >-) n 



o >n ir> 
^ » r-~ 



O ro OS 
O — — 
O 00 



TJ 


Ui 




a 




Vi 


s 





" CO 

■1.1 



o 



o 

o «> 

«> «_ 
3 ° . 

.t: "o t^ 

C « 0\ 
J> OS -■ 

w2^g 

O a, S- 

Q R « o 



I-' 5 9J o 

*^ ^ "^ « 






Oea ti O 

(_, ^ to 

J33 "5 "» 2 

O *^ ti r- 

W j3 t! ■> "O 

c c ^ 

ea 5 S 

-a g- o 



O 4) 



o 
_) 

>' 

o 
•o 

l-l 

o 

T3 



! O 



CO aj 



•rt to C 
9<J3 -o 

O *-' (D 

o c 

<0 






CQ 



3 

o 

O 



o 


■M 


u 


1 


«i!j 


c 




3 
O 

o 


O 


< 


S 


•o 


JH 


p 


< 


4> 


ai, 


r. 


O 


J3 


> 


u 


M 




i-l 




oi, 




O 




S 





•^ JJ 9 



CO ^ 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 



COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED NEOTYPE DESIGNATION 
FOR CALYMENE VARIOLARIS BRONGNIART, 1822 
(TRILOBITA). Z.N. (S.) 2189 
(see Bull. zool. Norn. vol. 33, p. 250; vol. 35, p. 15) 

By Gerhard Hahn (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitdtsgebiet 
Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) 

Tripp et al propose to designate a neotype for Encrinurus variolaris in 
'harmony with current use'. HoweU et al. oppose this proposal, remarking that 
'reference to the Commission is not necessary'. If the Code is thus strictly 
applied, 'current use' is indeed seriously disturbed. Species A of Brongniart 
(with genal spines), now known as^". tuberculatus, must be called E. variolaris, 
whereas Species B of Brongniart (without genal spines), now known as E. 
variolaris, will be left without a name. I think that this problem is indeed 
important enough to be treated by the Commission. I also think that the 
proposal of Tripp et al. will better help to stabilise nomenclature than will the 
hope that the lost types of Brongniart wiU one day be found. 

ANASPIS MULLER, 1764, ETC. COMMENTS ON PROPOSED 

DESIGNATIONS OF TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2240 

(see vol. 36, pp. 161-166) 

(1) By I.M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, 
Leningrad, USSR) 

The problem of the four coleopteran generic names discussed by 
Silfverberg is only a part of the general problem of Geoffroy's 1762 generic 
names not already considered by the Commission. My proposal on this larger 
problem was sent to the Secretary in October 1978 and its receipt was 
announced in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 194. According to the Secretary, my 
paper cannot be pubUshed at present. 

My proposal on the four names in question coincides with that of 
Silfverberg, except for the authorship of the names (see also Silfverberg, 1978, 
Notul. entomoL, vol. 58, pp. 117—119). First, Miiller, 1764, merely reprinted 
both the names and the diagnoses from Geoffroy's 1762 work under the 
heading 'Insectorum divisio methodica Domini Geoffroi'. As Geoffroy, not 
Miiller, is responsible both for the names and for the conditions that make 
them available, the correct authorship is Geoffroy in Miiller, 1764 (Code 
Articles 50, 51c). Secondly, in previous rulings of the Commission in analogous 
situations, eleven generic names were validated under the plenary powers with 
'Geoffroy, 1762' as the author and date (Opinions 281, 441, 442, 645, 681, 
683, 731). In two cases plenary powers were not requested and not used 
(Opinions 703 and 906) and the names were wrongly credited to Miiller, 1764 
and Schaeffer, 1766. Conformity with the majority of former ruhngs and 
conservation of the authorship widely used in the past and often even up to 
the present seems to be highly desirable. I therefore propose that the plenary 
powers be used to vahdate all four generic names as from Geoffroy, 1762. A 
complete discussion of the problem is given in my unpublished paper 
mentioned above. 



Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 



Some minor corrections not affecting the essence of Silfverberg's 
proposal should be made. For Anaspis nigra, A. bicolor, A. maculata, Luperus 
ulmarius and L. betulinus the correct authorship is Geoffrey in Fourcroy (as 
stated in the preface to the book, Fourcroy was only the editor), and for 
Luperus luperus it is Fuessly, 1775. 'Luperus pallidus Miiller' is a new com- 
bination for Chrysomela pallida Linnaeus, 1758 (now in Gonioctena). The first 
designation of Chrysomela flavipes Linnaeus as type species of Luperus is by 
Latreille, 1810, p. 432 {'Crioceris flavipes Fab.; ejusd. rufipes'; here rufipes is 
clearly mentioned as a synonym of flavipes, not as a second species). If 
LatreiUe's action seems ambiguous, the next citation of the same type species 
is by Curtis, 1831, finY. Entomol., p. 370. The first designation of Attelabus 
apiarius Linnaeus as type species of Clerus is by Curtis, 1824, Brit. Entomol., 
p. 44. 

(2) By F.C. Thompson (Systematic Entomology Laboratory 
USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington B.C. 20560, U.S.A.) 

The genus-group names involved here are those of Geoffroy, 1762, 
not of Miiller, 1764. When the Commission agreed to reject Geoffroy's work 
for nomenclatural purposes (Opinion 228) it also invited specialists to submit 
proposals for the validation of particular names in that work. 

This course was followed for a number of the Geoffroy names: Corixa 
(Opinion 281); Stomoxys, Volucella, Nemotelus, Scatopse and Bibio (Opinion 
441); Stratiomys (Opinion 442);Perla (Opinion 645); Naucoris (Opinion 681); 
Scolytus (Opinion 683) and Psylla (Opinion 73 1). 

Silfverberg's proposal is contrary to the above tendency because he has 
requested that the names be accredited to Miiller. This would cause confusion 
because most authors, as well as such standard reference works as Neave, 
Nomenclator Zoologicus, and Sherborn, Index Animalium, besides Miiller 
himself, have cited Geoffroy as the author of these names. To assign the 
authorship to Geoffroy does not affect the proposed type-species designations 
in any way. 

I therefore urge the Commission to use its plenary powers as requested 
by Silfverberg, but to validate the names as from Geoffroy, 1762, as it has 
done in the other cited cases. 

(3) by the Secretary, International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 

The delay in the publication of Dr Kerzhner's application concerning 
36 generic names in Geoffroy, 1762, is regretted. To scrutinise and verify so 
large and complicated an application, however, demands much continuous 
time, and under present conditions this is simply not available. Specialist help 
was fortuitously available when Dr Silfverberg's application came up for exam- 
ination, and it was used in preparing the case as thoroughly as possible. Dr Ker- 
zhner's appUcation deserves no less thorough treatment and will receive it 
when possible. At present there is no staff for the purpose, nor any funds to 
pay staff. 

On the general issue of names in rejected works, the Commission has 
a choice between three courses of action. It may (a) validate such names from 



Bull. 200I. \om., vol 38, pt 1, Kebruary 1981 



the work in question, using its plenary powers; (b) accept those names as from 
their first subsequent publication as available names; or (c) accept the next 
names made available for the same taxa. Dr Silfverberg has chosen to propose 
course (b). This seems to me consistent with the original intent of Opinion 
228, which was to reject Geoffroy's work as being not consistently binominal, 
and therefore to signify a continuity of policy that is in itself desirable. Since 
it is accepted by Dr Kerzhner and Dr Thompson that the meanings of the 
generic names are not affected and that the issue they raise is a merely formal 
one of author and date, the Commission should be offered their proposal as an 
alternative to Dr Silfverberg's. 



COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED REJECTION OF LACEPEDE'S 
"HISTOIRE NATURELLE DES SERPENS". Z.N.(S.) 1985 

By Jay M. Savage {Department uf Biological Sciences and Allan Hancock 

Foundation. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, 

U.S.A. 90007) 

Brongersma, 1972, Bull. zool. Norn. vol. 29. pp. 44-61, reviewed in 
depth the composition, sources and subsequent editions and reprintings of 
Lacepede's work on snakes, originally published as part of the "Suites a 
Buffon" in 1780-1790. This communication is a response to the Brongersma 
proposals. In the following, to avoid unnecessary repetition, I use the same 
references cited by Brongersma. 

Although Brongersma's apphcation to the Commission involves seven 
items, these may be grouped into two: (1) a request to reject all of Lacepede's 
works on snakes as being non-binominal; (2) if the works are not rejected, then 
to suppress one generic and five trivial names proposed by Lacepede, which are 
nomina oblita. This is now a plenary powers matter. 

Savage, 1952, Savage & Oliver, 1952, and Mertens, 1958, argued in 
favour of interpreting Lacepede's works as binominal. Nevertheless, after 
reviewing Brongersma's argument and reanalysing Lacepede's books, I am 
forced to agree that there is substantial question regarding the conformity of 
these works to a consistently binominal mode as required by Article 1 Ic of the 
Code. 

The second set of questions raised by Brongersma, (a) the priority of 
Coluber flavocaeruleus. Coluber oularsawa and Coluber oryzivorus (all of 
Lacepede, 1789) over the well-established name Boa reticulata Schneider, 
1801 for the Indian rock python ;(b) the priority of the generic name Langaha 
Lacepede, 1789 over Langaha Bonnaterre, 1790; and (c) the priority of 
Langaha langaha Lacepede, 1789 over Langaha madagascariensis Bonnaterre, 
1790 and L. nasuta Shaw, 1802, is completely resolved if Lacepede is 
suppressed. 

The only reasonable alternative to the situation is to: 

1. Rule that Lacepede's 1780-90 Histoire naturelle des Serpens, is 
not consistently binominal and should be placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected Works in Zoology. 

2. Refuse to approve Brongersma's request regarding the 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 



suppression of Langaha madagascariensis Bonnaterre, 1790, but instead place 
that name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

Only the last item needs explanation. The name Langaha madagas- 
cariensis Bonnaterre, 1790, has priority over L. nasuta, Shaw, 1802. No con- 
fusion can possibly result since the genus is monotypic and restricted to 
Madagascar; L. nasuta is not a name of wide usage in ecological, physiological 
or general works; indeed, the name madagascariensis more readHy identifies the 
species than nasuta. 

The result of these actions in no way affects any names conserved 
under Opinion 524 and supports the result of Opinion 525. 



COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF NETTASTOMELLA 

CARPENTER, 1865 (BIVALVIA). Z.N.(S.)1054 

(see vol. 37, pp. 114-116) 

By Lee A. Schremp & Jack D. Mount (Geology Museum, University 
of California. Riverside CA 92521, USA) 

We feel that the Commission should reject the petition to conserve 
Nettastomella Carpenter, 1865. The best interests of nomenclatural stability 
wiU not be served by the suppression of the earhei Netastoma Carpenter, 1864. 
The recent works listed in the petition by Coan & Kennedy (McLean, 1969; 
Keen & Coan, 1974; Coan & Carlton, 1975), all of which use the older name, 
are currently the standard references for the Calif omian Province. To them can 
be added McLean, J.H., 1978, Marine seashells of southern California, Los 
Angeles Mus. nat. Hist. sci. Ser. no. 24, 104 pp. 54 figs. Further, the Law of 
Priority is a fundamental precept of the code of nomenclature and any over- 
ruling of it should occur only in instances of clear non-usage of an older name. 
This is certainly not the case with this problem. 

We therefore request the Commission (1) to place the earlier name 
Netastoma Carpenter, 1864 (gender: neuter), type species, by monotypy, 
Pholas darwinii G.B. Sowerby II, 1849, on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology, and (2) to place the specific name darwinii G.B. Sowerby II, 1849, 
as pubhshed in the binomen Pholas darwinii, on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology. 



10 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 



THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL 

NOMENCLATURE: 

RESULT OF VOTE ON PROPOSALS FOR SUBSTANTIVE 

AMENDMENTS (THIRD INSTALMENT) Z.N.(G.)182 

By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature 

This report presents the results of a further vote on some of 
the proposals for substantive changes in the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature put forward by the Editorial Committee. 
They were not published one year before the vote was taken, but 
were identified in discussion by the Special Session of the Commis- 
sion at Stensoffa or at the General Meeting at Helsinki. All were 
considered to arise so naturally out of proposals already published, 
or to affect such minor points of drafting, that it was not thought 
necessary to put them through the full Declarations procedure. All 
were pubhshed in the report of the Stensoffa and Helsinki meetings 
{Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 21 1-221 ). The present vote was taken 
so that the Commission will be able to assure the Division of 
Zoology of lUBS that the instructions received from the Section on 
Zoological Nomenclature at Helsinki (on the procedures to be 
followed for completing work on the third edition of the Code) 
have been followed to the letter. 

2. The vote concerns paragraphs 21, 1 1, 9, 10, 12, 25 and 
29 of the report referred to above. Of these, paragraphs 9, 10, 21, 
25 and 29 fall into the category just mentioned. Paragraph 1 1 
presents a point that arises naturally out of point 5 on V.P.(79)1. 
By that vote the Commission decided that generic and specific 
names published after 1930 with a single combined description of 
the genus and species should be available; that provision has now 
been extended to cover family-group and generic names published 
with a single combined description. 

3. The Committee decided to divide paragraph 12 of its 
report into two parts and to call for a vote at this point only on 
the first three and a half hnes (up to the semicolon after the word 
'parts'; see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 214). The remainder of this 
paragraph is still under discussion. 

4. The Commission was accordingly called upon to vote 
on the above paragraphs in V.P.(80)15 issued on 9 April 1980. 
The paragraphs were presented as follows: 



Bull. zoo/. A^ow., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 11 



V.P.(80)15 

Vote Article in Code Commission Report to Section on Zoological Nomen- 
No. clature, Helsinki, 1979, Section B 

1 11 f(i) 21. A generic name that has come to be used as the 
42c name of a collective group may continue in that use 

notwithstanding that the taxon has a type species. 
The Code Article 1 1 f(i) provides that names for 
collective groups are treated as generic names, and 
that collective groups require no type-species (Art. 
42c). However, names that have become used for 
collective groups may be already available names for 
genera with type species fixed. It is undesirable to 
require such names to be placed in synonymy with 
names validly used for other genus-group taxa and 
removed from the collective groups to which they are 
appUed. While such a name is in use for a collective 
group, it would be treated as though it has no type. 

2 13a 11. That a new generic and a new family name 

proposed together as new after 1930 with a single 
description serving for both are not made unavail- 
able solely on the grounds that there are not separate 
descriptions that are presumed to differentiate or 
distinguish the taxa. If they satisfy the other provis- 
ions of the Code governing availability such names 
would both be available. Under Article 13a a name 
proposed after 1930 must, unless a replacement 
name, be accompanied by a statement that purports 
to give characters differentiating the taxon or by a 
bibliographic reference to such a statement. The 
Commission in VP(79)1 {Bull. zool. Norn. vol. 36: 
66-70) has voted to make generic and specific names 
characterised in a single combined description avail- 
able after 1930 as well as before 1931 (unless they are 
not available for some other reason). The Committee 
recommends that the action relating to genus-group 
and species-group names be completed by accepting 
the same principle for family-group and genus-group 
names. 

3 16a(i) 9. To require when an indication for a name 

proposed before 1931 consists of a bibliographic ref- 
erence to a previously published description, definition 
or illustration, that the name so indicated must be 
treated as valid in the work in which both the name 
and the bibliographic reference occur. Under Article 
12 and Article 16 a(i) an author prior to 1931 can 



12 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 



Vote Article in Code Commission Report to Section on Zoological Nomen- 
No. clature, Helsinki, 1 979, Section B 

make a previously unavailable name, or a newly 
proposed name, available by publishing with it as an 
indication a bibliographic reference to a previously 
published description. Such names would only become 
available by that action if, in the work in which the 
name and the reference are published together, the 
author has employed the name as a valid name. The 
provision is impUcit in Article 1 , but that fact can be 
overlooked. 

4 17 10. To provide that the status of an unavailable 

name is not changed by mere citation (in synonymy 
or otherwise) of the name and a bibliographic 
reference to the work in which it was published in a 
manner that did not satisfy the criteria of availability. 
The Committee recommends that this matter be 
made explicit. 

5 26 12. That an available compound epithet published 

as separate words based on the name of a place or a 
saint, one being an abbreviation, shall be amended by 
writing the abbreviation in full and uniting the parts. 

6 67 25. That a designation of a type species made in 

contravention of the provision that the name of a 
type species is the binomen (or trinomen) in its 
correct original spelling and original combination 
would be valid but the name of the type species 
should be correctly cited by subsequent authors. In 
VP(79)1 {Bull. zool. Norn. vol. 36: 66-70) the 
Commission adopted a recommendation that the 
name of a type species is the binomen or trinomen in 
its correct original spelling and original combination 
(see Al 4 above). This addition completes the provision. 

7 75 29. To specify that the designation of a specimen 

to be a neotype other than in accordance with and 
under the conditions specified in the Code in the 
'cases admitted' (2nd Edn Art. 75a) is not a valid 
designation and the specimen so designated not a 
neotype. The Code Article 75c lists qualifying con- 
ditions and specifies that a neotype is validly desig- 
nated only when pubUshed with certain specified 
particulars. In additon (Art. 75a) the Code states 
that a neotype 'is to be designated only in connect- 
ion with revisory work, and then only in exceptional 



Bull, zooi Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 13 

circumstances' that are specified, but it is not explicit 
that a neotype designated under circumstances other 
than those described in Article 75a has no status in 
nomenclature. The proposal provides that neotypes 
designated in circumstances other than those admitted 
in the Code are invalid. 

At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1 980, votes had 
been received in the following order: Sabrosky, Melville Heppell 
Holthuis, Nye, Mroczkowski, Vokes, Dupuis, Corliss, Brinck' 
Trjapitzin, Willink, Ride, Bayer, Kraus, Hahn, Starobogatov' 
Halvorsen, Alvarado, Binder, Tortonese, Welch, Bernardi The state 
of the voting was as follows: 

( 1 ) Article 1 1 f(i), Availability ^9 ' ^^^2"'* 

(2) Article 1 3a, AvailabiHty 22 

(3) Article 1 6a(i), Indications 20 1 

(4) Article 17, Non-availability 20 2 

(5) Article 26, Formation of names 21 1 

(6) Article 67, Type species 22 

(7) Article 75, Neotypes 22 

Dupuis abstained on all points and Trjapitzin on Points (1) and 
(3). No voting papers were returned by Habe and Cogger. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Vote 1 

Holthuis: 'A nominal genus can never lose its type species 
not even when any zoologist uses its name for what he calls a 
collective group".' 

Trjapitzin: 'In this case I refrain from voting because the 
addition makes the text of the article longer but does not change its 
sense. 

Ride: 'In voting in the affirmative, I must make it clear that 
the vote is confined to the content of the first sentence While there 
IS no objection to such names being cited as junior synonyms of 
valid generic names, there should be no consequential requirement 
tor such junior synonyms to be removed from the collective groups 
they are used to represent.' 

Starobogatov: 'Names generally used for collective groups 
must be adopted as such by special ruling of the Commission. Any 
other formulation leads to confusion ' 



14 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 



Votes 

Heppell: 'I am against this proposal not only because most 
such names not treated as vahd would be synonyms which should 
remain capable of being validated under Article lid, but because 
it needlessly introduces an element of doubt. There are many cases 
of names about which it is impossible to be sure whether the author 
making reference to them treated them as vahd or not. The most 
obvious examples are nomenclators and catalogues of collections, 
but there are other cases where authors included previously unavail- 
able names of nominal species qualified by expressions of doubt as 
to their taxonomic status. It would be difficult to draw the line 
between conditional acceptance and provisional synonymy. When, 
however, an author refers to a previously unavailable name 
explicitly for historical purposes only I would be against accepting 
such a reference as an indication conferring availability upon the 
name. I would prefer the few doubtful cases to be brought to the 
Commission for a decision to this stringent proposal, the effects of 
which on stability are impossible to foresee. Practically all cases 
of availability through bibUographic reference involve specific 
rather than generic names, as, if a species A-us b-us were published 
with a bibliographic reference to its otherwise unavailable synonym 
X-us y-us, X-us would in any case be available through its direct 
association with b-us (Draft Code Article 67m).' 

Vote 4 

Heppell: 'According to my notes made at the time this prov- 
ision was rejected by the Stensoffa Special Session as being incon- 
sistent with the rule on names first published in synonymy (Article 
lid). A name first published as a junior synonym in association 
with a bibliographic reference to an illustration may later have been 
removed from synonymy and used as a valid name, if the species 
illustrated proved to be distinct from that denoted by the senior 
synonym. Such names would all be at risk as a result of the proposed 
restriction, especially in view of the additional provision in a later 
draft of the present Code that "a name that is unavailable under 
any of the other provisions of this Chapter cannot be made avail- 
able by adoption from a citation as a junior synonym". At present 
the status of an unavailable name was obviously changed by "mere 
citation" in synonymy, as it became potentially available for 
adoption as a vahd name up till the end of 1 960.' 

Votes 

Alvarado: 'This question is not clear to me.' 



Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt I , February 1981 15 

Vote 7 

7c ,J??P'^^^"'. '' ^"'^y ^gree, but it is necessary to add to Article 
/5c that exceptional circumstances" must be clarified by a zoolog- 
ist who designates a neotype.' ^uuiog 

DECLARATION OF RESULT OF VOTE 

.nhn^itlin f"'"'^ °^^^' "^"^^ °" V.P.(80)15 is that all the points 
submitted for a vote received the two-thirds majority required 
under Article 16a(iv) of the Constitution. The pubhcatL of th^ 
eport announces the intention of the Commission to incorporate 
the proposed amendments into the Code, in accordance with the 
authority given to it by the Division of Zoology of TuBS at 

"ofthf^omlSioTstp^^^^^^^^^^ '' ''' ^'''^^^' ^--^"- 

R.V. MELVILLE 

International Commission on Zoological Nomfndafure 

London 
6 October 1980 



16 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 



THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL 

NOMENCLATURE: 

RESULT OF VOTE ON PROPOSALS FOR SUBSTANTIVE 

AMENDMENTS (FOURTH INSTALMENT) Z.N.(G.)185 

By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological 

Nomenclature 

This report presents the result of the Commission's vote on 
the proposal to introduce "hapantotypes" into the Code. This 
proposal was put forward as a means of solving difficulties peculiar 
(at present) to workers in parasitic protozoology in typifying 
species with complex Ufe cycles. It was published in Bull. zool. 
Norn. vol. 35, pp. 200-208 (May 1979), was reported to and 
approved by the Special Session of the Commission at Stensoffa, 
Sweden, and was reported to and approved by the Section on 
Zoological Nomenclature at Helsinki. The proposal had been 
endorsed by the International Commission on Protozoology and the 
International Congress of Parasitology. 

A supporting paper by Gamham, Bray & Kilhck-Kendrick 
was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 17-21, and a 
comment by Dr R.B. Williams in vol. 37, pp. 137-139. Professor 
Gordon Bennett {Memorial University of Newfoundland) contrib- 
uted to the discussion by correspondence. 

On 16 June 1980, the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
V. P. (80)1 7 on the proposal in the following form (paragraph B.27 
of the Commission's report to the Section on Zoological Nomen- 
clature at Helsinki): 

Code Article Commission Report to Section on Zoological 
Nomenclature at Helsinki, 1979, Section B 

72 27. To provide that in extant species of protozoa, 

when a taxon cannot be differentiated by a single 
individual (or a single preparation — B26 above), 
a suite of several preserved preparations of directly 
related individuals representing different stages in 
the life cycle may be designated as a holotype or 
neotype, or selected as a lectotype. Such a group 
of preparations would have the status of such a 
type (not syntypes). The term hapantotype is 
proposed to describe this category. The change 
proposed to Article 72 is an extension of that in 
B26 above. The proposal results from consulta- 



Bull zool Norn., vol 38, pt I , February 1 98 1 17 

Hon with the same bodies {Bull zool Norn. vol. 35: 

with th?vottag°p^pfr"°'' °" *" '''''°"'=^' background was sent out 

Ihl acJo^^a'^^ng no'.r°" ""' '° ^°" ^^^ ^ ™'^- " '-xpl-ned";: 
non,e„l^Le%!,^rrra^^^^ 

Co^r^i :.^Llpf -St,1. 1 .l!?u='onTs' t-^ee-reti^e? 
Norman DUvine°'J'?'/H^- °'""^''" <''-^> ^"^ Professor 

goupor^^^:.^^^„ - ^^ 

DD lis nq^ T^' ■' '^^^' ^^'^'chr. Pamsitenk., vol 58 

to the completion of the life cvrle of th^ ^o "-". J^^^^ "^cessary 



18 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 



It was at this point that the German group met their nomen- 
clatural problem. To which of the three species in the ox should the 
name S. hirsuta be given? Could any of the names regarded as 
synonyms of S. hirsuta (e.g. S. fusiformis Railliet, 1897; 
S. blanchardi Doflein, 1901) be used as valid names? The sheer size 
of the technical strides made by the German group rendered the 
original descriptions useless as a standard of reference, and none of 
the original preparations survived. They therefore decided to reject 
the old names altogether and to propose new ones. They named the 
three cattle species S. bovicanis, S. bovifelis, and S. bovihominis, 
and extended this practice to other species of Sarcocystis and to 
species of related genera (Frenkelia, Hammondia, etc.). 

The procedure adopted by the German workers evoked two 
different reactions among their colleagues. Some pointed out that 
it was not only contrary to the letter of the Code, but also to its 
spirit in that long-established names for species of great economic 
importance were rejected in favour of junior synonyms, thus up- 
setting stability of nomenclature. Others, however, welcomed the 
new names, particularly those that combined elements of the names 
of the two hosts - though the apparent simplicity and directness 
of this procedure has been somewhat spoiled by the discovery that 
there is more than one ox-dog species of Sarcocystis. Since 1975, 
when these new names began to be proposed, their use has spread 
and is gaining ground, in spite of protests from distinguised 
protozoologists, who continued using the old names. 

When the Commission's help was first sought, my reply was 
that the Code was there to be applied, and that its application in 
the present case was perfectly clear: the new replacement names 
were invalid; they must be rejected, and the old names restored to 
use. Having ascertained that no original material of the early-named 
species was known, I asked why the problem could not be solved 
by the use of neotypes. The answer was that no single individual 
would serve the purpose of a type, namely, to provide a standard 
of reference for the application of a name. It was explained to me 
that it is now necessary to examine all the stages of a life cycle 
before a species can be correctly recognised. Thus the Code, by 
insisting that a type in the species group can only be a single in- 
dividual, actually prevented a solution to the problem being found 
within the framework of the Code. 

It was at this point that I was able to discuss the problem 
personally with Professors Gamham and Levine (who wished to 
retain the old names) and the members of the German group at the 
International Congress of Protozoology in New York in July 1977; 
it was there that the International Commission on Protozoology 
set up the committee whose report is referred to in my first para- 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 19 



graph. Meanwhile, Frenkel et al., 1979, are asking the Commission 
to suppress the older names by the use of the plenary powers, on 
the grounds that they are nomina dubia. You are asked to read that 
paper, if possible, as well as the Committee's report and the 
enclosed separate of my reply to Frenkel et al. before voting. 

After a year's intensive work by correspondence in the 
Committee, and after further direct discussions at the International 
Congress of Parasitology at Warsaw in 1978 and subsequently, I am 
personally wholly convinced that the problem arising from the 
work of the German group can only find a solution if the Code is 
amended so as to allow the species concerned to have as their types 
a suite of exhibits demonstrating the successive phases of the life 
cycle and, where appropriate, zymograms or isoenzyme prints. The 
number of species involved is not small, for it includes other parasit- 
ic protozoa, most notably the malarias, in addition to Sarcocystis 
and its allies. The gravity of the problem arises from the medical 
and veterinary importance of the species concerned. The Commiss- 
ion cannot condone the continuance of confusion and discord in 
the nomenclature of these animals. 

At the same time, if the concept of hapantotypes is to be 
incorporated in the Code, the strictest controls must be imposed 
on its application. This view is strongly held by the parasitologists 
with whom I have discussed the subject. They see as clearly as 
anybody else that there is bound to be a risk of hapantotypes 
including material of more than one species, and that every precau- 
tion must be taken to ensure their purity. They also understand the 
radical nature of the proposal. In effect, it reveals a conflict 
between the classic concept of the objectivity of the unique type 
and the practical necessity to have types that serve some useful 
purpose as standards of reference. The Code, after all, admits that 
species may be based on syntypes; and a moment's reflection will 
show that in many groups, types are already of a multiple nature — 
not only in colonial animals, such as corals, polyzoa, graptolites, 
but also in vertebrates, where an entire body with all its parts, or 
an entire skeleton may be a type. The conceptual difficulty of 
accepting hapantotypes therefore does not seem to me very great. 
It is the fact that it must comprise physically independent cells 
which cannot be treated as syntypes that poses difficulty. I hope 
the fact that the German group is persisting in its course of action 
and that confusion and ill feeling are growing, will induce you to 
overcome that difficulty. 

You are therefore asked to vote for or against adding a 
provision to Article 72 of the Code to allow that, in extant species 
of protozoa, if the name cannot be interpreted by reference to an 
animal or part of an animal, the type may be a number of directly 
related individuals, either: 



20 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 981 



[(1) in a single preparation (type slide); or ] 
(2) a suite of preparations representing differing stages in the life 
cycle (hapantotype). 

(I have placed proposition (1) in brackets because it has already 
been accepted in V.P.(80)1 , Point 1 0.) 

The proposed Glossary definition of 'hapantotype' is: 'the 
suite of directly related individuals, including where necessary 
directly related evidence of their work, that together form an 
onomatophore [name-bearing type] in certain extant species of 
protozoa.' 



OBJECTIONS RECEIVED 

On 20 September 1979 Professor Holthuis wrote to express 
disquiet at some of the major changes to the Code accepted by the 
Stensoffa meeting. On hapantotypes he said: 

'My objection to this concept is that until now a holotype is 
an objective standard of reference for a species, since it can, by 
definition, only be a single specimen. Both an individual and a clone 
cannot belong to more than one species. The moment a type series 
of different individuals, and a hapantotype is such a type series, is 
given the status of a holotype, the holotype concept loses its value 
as an objective standard. 

'I cannot see what is wrong in designating a type series of 
various stages as syntypes. If they all belong to a single species they 
are as good a standard of comparison as when one calls them a holo- 
type. If they do not belong to a single species then a lectotype can 
be chosen and the standard of the name can be preserved. My 
advice would be that we recognise lectosyntypes, i.e. that from a 
series of syntypes we could remove certain specimens that prove to 
belong to a different species from the rest, and still keep a series 
of lectosyntypes instead of a single lecto(holo)type. In this way 
one would still have the advantage of being able to use a (purified) 
type series. 

'A hapantotype is far more vulnerable than a syntype series. 
If a hapantotype proves to represent more than one species, what 
do you do? Reject the whole thing and leave the species without a 
type? Or can you make a lectohapantotype? And what if two 
authors differ about the homogeneity of a hapantotype? Who is 
to decide how many stages have to be represented to make a hapan- 
totype? Can you have hapantotypes of two individuals? I am afraid 



Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 21 

that here too all the consequences of the introduction of the term 
hapantotype have not been thoroughly considered, and that in 
introducing the concept in such a hurried way we shall do the 
Commission and the Code more harm than good.' 

I replied on 26 September 1979: 'In considering the differ- 
ence between a hapantotype and a series of syntypes have you 
considered the arguments advanced by Garnham et al in Bull 
zool. Norn. vol. 36, pp. 17-21? I agree that a hapantotype is vulner- 
able - that is the nature of the case - but you cannot deny the 
necessity for a suite of preparations showing successive stages of the 
lite cycle. The nearest we can bring such a suite to the objective 
ideal is to insist that all the components of it are directly related 
But the whole suite is indivisible and no single specimen or prepar- 
ation can be designated from it as holotype or lectotype because 
no single specimen can serve the function of a type. 
^^ 'Steyskal has come up with the suggestion of the term 
plethotype' which could be used to designate a provisional 
standard of reference for a protozoan species for which a hapanto- 
type could not, or not certainly, be provided. But there might be a 
succession of plethotypes, each rejected in turn as a more nearly 
complete suite of stages was prepared, before a true hapantotype 
could be prepared. The point here is, as I am sure you can see that 
you cannot go on breeding directly related individuals from one or 
more dead preparations; so each earlier plethotype would have to 
be rejected. This is, perhaps, a grave disadvantage.' 

'Of course, if a hapantotype is found to contain material of 
more than one species, the whole thing must be rejected and a fresh 
start made with new material.' 

On 11 October 1979, Professor Holthuis asked three 
questions: 

'(1) How can you prove that organisms that pass through 

various stages in different hosts are directly related? 
'(2) How can a type be an objective standard if you can 

^r■2^ S-^^^* ^^^ "^^^^^ ^^^"^ ^"^ ^*^^* ^Sain with fresh material? 
(3) What happens if one zoologist claims that a hapantotype 
consists of specimens of the same species while another 
says that more than one species is involved? Does the 
species then have two holotypes? The original and the 
new hapantotypes? Who is to decide which is the correct 
one?' 

I replied on 29 October: 

'(1) Direct relationship through different hosts is demonstra- 
ted by cross-infection tests using laboratory-bred, sterile 
hosts. 



22 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 



'(2) A hapantotype would only provide an objective stan- 
dard of reference if it consisted of true-bred parasites. 
If it proved to contain a mixture, then obviously it 
must be rejected and a fresh start must be made. It 
would not be possible, as it would with a series of 
syntypes, to choose a lectotype because the hapanto- 
type would consist of dead, fixed cells from which it 
would be impossible to restart the life cycle. [The 
ground of argument on this point is obviously changed 
if living culture material in cryopreservation is admitted.] 

'(3) Any author who claimed that a hapantotype represen- 
ted more than one species would have to prove his case, 
by cross-infection tests, by isoenzyme analysis, or by 
some other means. If his case is accepted, then the 
hapantotype would have to be rejected and a fresh start 
made.' 

On 16 November Professor Holthuis wrote, on these same 
points: 

'(1) In that case I cannot see that many (or perhaps any) 
direct hapantotypes can be established if before describ- 
ing a new species one has to do cross-infection tests on 
laboratory-bred sterile hosts, especially if the hosts are 
feral, not domestic, species. 

'(2) This second requirement makes it even more impractical 
to establish hapantotypes, and it makes the fitness of a 
hapantotype as a standard even more hazardous. 

'(3) You say that an author who thinks that a hapantotype 
is heterogeneous has to prove his case. As you remarked 
yourself, the hapantotype cells are dead and preserved; 
therefore it cannot be proved that the various stages in 
the hapantotype series are different species. But he can 
make it likely by raising from a stage of what he takes 
to be the same species as the corresponding stage in the 
hapantotype a series of stages that differ from the re- 
maining stages in the hapantotype. You say "if the case 
is accepted", but by whom? By the Commission? But 
the question is taxonomic, so the Commission has no 
say in it. By the zoological public? How do you find 
this out? In most cases there will be a difference of 
opinion, which will clearly show the fact that this 
"type" is anything but an objective standard.' 

Professor Holthuis also referred to a paper by Tadros & 
Laarman, 1976, Acta Leidensia, vol. 44, in which it is said that 
"the oocyst of eimeriid Coccidia is the most stable and reliable 
basic criterion for a workable scheme of classification" and 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 23 



suggested that an oocyst might serve as a holotype. 

It does not appear that I answered that letter, but it may be 
pointed out that Professor Holthuis has altered the ground of his 
objection by including in it the impracticality of preparing hapanto- 
types. On point ( 1 ) it is fair to point out that there is no compulsion 
on authors to designate types of new species. On the suitability of 
oocysts as holotypes, it is unfortunately a fact that no successful 
method of preserving them undistorted has yet been found. 

On 8 January 1980 a meeting took place at the Imperial 
College Field Station at Ascot between, on the one hand, Professor 
Holthuis, Professor Bayer and the Secretary, and, on the other hand. 
Professor Garnham, Dr. Bray (members of the Committee on 
Typification of Protozoa) and Dr. Killick-Kendrick. The follow- 
ing note of the meeting was circulated. (Professor Holthuis's 
reservations are recorded below.) 

The discussion made it possible, first, to explain one of the 
main arguments in favour of hapantotypes: namely, that in a proto- 
zoan species with a complex hfe cycle, each stage taken individually 
might be indistinguishable from the corresponding stage in some 
other species, although the complete sequence of stages taken as 
a whole was pecuUar to that species. Hence, any standard of refer- 
ence that represented less than the complete life cycle would be 
incapable of serving the prime function of a type and would be 
useless. This point was accepted by Professor Holthuis. 

'Professor Holthuis then raised the question of a hapan to- 
type found to be incomplete. Here an analogy was drawn with 
imperfect or incomplete types among Metazoa; if necessary to the 
stabiHty of nomenclature, an application could be addressed to the 
Commission for the setting aside of the imperfect type or hapanto- 
type and the designation of a neotype by the use of the plenary 
powers. 

'Professor Holthuis's main objection was to the multiple 
nature of a hapantotype. For him, the essence of the type principle 
when applied to species was the objective uniqueness of the type 
specimen. In the case of a species based on syntypes, if these were 
later thought to represent more than one species, it was possible 
to designate a unique lectotype to represent the species originally 
based on the syntypes. Although he accepted that this could be 
ineffective in protozoa with complex life cycles, he still sought 
reassurance on the problem of a hapantotype found to com- 
prise representatives of more than one species. Although in some 
cases it might be enough to rely on the description and illustrat- 
ions, this would not always be the case. He accepted the general 
point that it is impossible to require, as a matter of legislation, 
that descriptions or illustrations must satisfy certain predetermined 
criteria. 



24 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1981 



The protozoologists pointed out that the likelihood of an 
author knowlingly basing a new species on composite material 
was equally small in protozoa and Metazoa. With modern techniques 
using laboratory-bred hosts, it was extremely unlikely that com- 
posite hapantotypes would in practice be prepared, although they 
agreed that the possibihty could not be excluded. At the same 
time, they pointed out that even in a hapantotype found to be 
mixed, every stage of the species based on the hapantotype would 
be certainly represented, even if individuals of another species were 
also present. It would therefore be possible for a subsequent 
zoologist to restrict the original hapantotype by indicating the cells 
that he considered to belong to some other species, without thereby 
destroying the completeness of the hapantotype as a sequence of 
representatives of every stage in the hfe cycle. Professor Holthuis 
was satisfied with this argument. 

'Lastly, it was agreed to propose the following revised Glossary 
definition of "hapantotype"; 

"The suite of directly related individuals, including where 
necessary directly related evidence of their work, that 
represents successive stages in the life cycle of extant species 
of protozoa and that forms the name-bearing type (onomato- 
phore) of such a species. If a hapantotype is found to be 
mixed or composite, it may be restricted, but no lectotype 
can be validly designated from among the specimens com- 
prised in it. The term may be prefixed by "holo-", "lecto-", 
"neo-", "para-" or "syn-" as appropriate".' 
Professor Holthuis wrote as follows on receiving this report 
(his letter was dated 25th January 1980): 

T do not remember having raised the question of 
"incomplete" hapantotypes. Does a hapantotype, in order to be 
"complete" have to consist of all stages of a species? It does not say 
so in the proposed definition. If this is not so, what then do you 
take to be a "complete" or an "incomplete" hapantotype? Is it 
"complete" when there are enough stages to make it possible to 
recognize the species? In some cases a single stage would suffice, 
and I would not call that a hapantotype. I will return to this point 
when deahng with definition. 

'I fear that you misunderstood me on composite hapantotypes. 
If a hapantotype proves to consist of more than one species, the 
description and figures, whether or not they deal with only one of 
the species, is or are immaterial. The type material is and remains 
heterogeneous. 

'What I meant was that if there is a homogeneous type series 
(syntypes or hapantotype), the fact that one of the specimens is 
made the lectotype does not make the species any less recognizable. 



Bull. zoo/. yVow., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 25 



Consider a type series consisting of a specimen of each of stages A, 
B, C and D (if the species has four stages) and none of the stages 
is by itself characteristic of the species, but only a combination 
of some or all of them. If specimen C is selected the lectotype of 
the species, that single specimen does not characterize the species, 
but the fact that stages A, B and D belong to the same species 
does. To be of importance, these specimens do not have to belong 
to a hapantotype. If they become paralectotypes and if, but only 
if, they are conspecific with the lectotype, they play exactly the 
same role as they would if they were part of the hapantotype. The 
condition is that they are conspecific with the lectotype, but the 
same condition applies to a hapantotype. By the same token, an 
author can indicate a single specimen of a single stage as the 
holotype of a species and in his description describe all the stages 
of the species. In this way his species is recognizable, even if the 
single holotype in itself does not show enough characters to make 
the specific identity certain. 

'In taxonomy there are lots of cases in which the type 
itself is not sufficient to recognize the species (e.g. where the 
type is damaged or lost, or where a non-morphological character 
such as sound, movement or locahty, are essential) but where 
outside evidence (e.g. original or later descriptions, paratypes, etc.) 
is needed for the identification of the species. 

i agree with the definition, except for the last sentence. But 
it does not cover statements in the preceding paragraphs: 

(a) the definition is such that any two or more stages of a 
species (even if it contains more than that number of 
stages) can be made into a hapantotype. There is no 
mention of a complete set of stages. Personally I do not 
see the need for a complete set, as (1) it might be 
possible to recognize the species from a few stages only, 
so that a complete set would be unnecessary, and (2) 
it might be difficult to ascertain that a set is complete, 
certainly with a new species, so that a hapantotype 
would be disqualified the moment an "intermediate" 
stage is discovered. 

(b) what is meant by "directly related"? If it is the sequence 
"mother-daughter-granddaughter" and nothing else, it 
would be extremely difficult if not impossible to prove, 
and thus hapantotypes will become extremely difficult 
if not impossible to establish. 

(c) in the definition it is said that a hapantotype may be 
divided or restricted. I fully agree to the broad sense 
in which this is expressed, for a hapantotype could then 
be restricted to a single specimen, which would be equil- 



26 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 



avent to a lectotype designation. However, from the 
previous paragraphs I get the impression that a hapanto- 
type, even if restricted, has to represent all the stages of 
a species. Hence if one stage proves to be represented by 
a different species from the rest, the hapantotype is 
invalid, 
(d) as to the last sentence of the definition, I see the hapan- 
totype as a special kind of syntype (from which no 
lectotype should be selected, but which can be restricted 
if necessary), and just as there are no holo-, lecto-, syn- 
and para-syntypes, I would not recognize such categories 
for hapantotypes. The only thing that I would recognize 
would be a neohapantotype. 
'I believe Dr. Bray objected to the restriction of the use of 
hapantotypes to the protozoa. I fully agree with him. If there is a 
need for hapantotypes in other groups, it seems pedantic of the 
Commission not to allow its use there. Nowhere in the Code is 
there, I believe, a rule that apphes only to one taxonomic group. 
As different authors might interpret the limits of such a group in 
different ways (and taxonomic freedom cannot be limited by the 
Commission), this would mean that different nomenclatural rules 
might legally be used for the same taxon, depending on the taxon- 
omic views of an author.' 

[It seems to me that Professor Holthuis shows, in this letter, 
that he has not fully understood the grounds for the hapantotype 
proposal and that, in consequence, he falls into inconsistencies. In 
his last paragraph he seems to suggest extending its appHcation, 
which is not in line with his previous arguments. I have discussed 
the proposal with zoologists working in various multi-stage animal 
groups, and in every case I have been told that species can be 
adequately represented by a single holotype taken at an appropriate 
stage (usually, but not invariably, the mature adult). I therefore 
believe that the concept should be applied only where an urgent 
need has been demonstrated, and that it is for interested zoologists 
in other groups to make their own case to the Commision for its 
extension.] 

Professor Bayer wrote on 25 February 1980 as follows: 
'I have to repeat my conviction that the Code must serve 
the sciences that need it, and therefore take into account the situ- 
ation where a species cannot be characterised by a single specimen 
or single stage in a complex hfe history. We have got round this 
problem in macroinvertebrates for years without introduction of 
a new category of type-specimens, but it appears that in the case 
of protozoans with complex life cycles the situation is so difficult 
that new procedures are needed. Nevertheless, I consider it a 



Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 27 



mistake to let new provisions established for such special cases 
diminish the effectiveness of the Code for use in other animal 
groups, so I concur with Dr. Holthuis's view while acknowledging 
the needs of researchers in parasitology. Given that the Code must 
not only retain its integrity for appUcation in the vast majority of 
animal groups, but also fill the needs of scientists working with 
animals having a complex Ufe cycle, the problem is to find an 
acceptable common ground. I think that this was achieved under 
your guidance at Ascot, and in my opinion there remain only 
matters of detail, largely semantic, to be clarified. 

'If memory serves me aright, it was the potential heterogen- 
eity of hapantotype preparations that drew the strongest objection 
from Dr. Holthuis, as noted in his letter of 25 January 1980. 
Evidently, heterogeneity remains possible even with the most 
refined laboratory techniques, although chances of its occurrence 
are slight. The provision that a hapantotype sequence can be 
culled of extraneous components without jeopardy to its status 
seems to circumvent this difficulty by leaving only conspecific 
organisms in the hapantotype array. However, if one of the stages 
of the hapantotype were found not to be conspecific (as opposed 
merely to being contaminated by cells that can be excluded from 
consideration), it was my understanding that the whole hapantotype 
would be deemed invalid, requiring a new sequence to be prepared. 
Do 1 recall correctly that this point was raised several times in the 
discussion? It seems to be a potentially sticky point and, other 
than in the possible term "neohapantotype", it is not addressed in 
the definition (and perhaps ought not to be; it is procedural and 
should be covered in the pertinent Article). 

'It seems to me that the question regarding the expression 
"directly related individuals" raised by Dr. Holthuis is a semantic 
one. I sense that they are ontogenetically related but not necessar- 
ily "mother-daughter-granddaughter". Having been cultured in a 
presumably clean host from a presumably pure inoculate (or what- 
ever they call it), all would be conspecific even if not derived from 
the same parent (clonal). Haven't the parasitologists some term 
that could serve in place of "directly related"? 

'I have difficulty in determining how the combining term 
with prefixes "holo-", "lecto-", "para-" and "syn-" are to be used. 
As I read the definition, the hapantotype functions as a holotype. 
If the hapantotype serves as a holotype, I can't see the need for a 
term "holohapantotype". All of the stages could be on one sUde, 
or they could be on separate slides (as I assume would often be 
the case in blood parasites), or in separate vials or bottles. One or 
all of these could contain contaminants excludable under the Code. 
Are the conspecific cells remaining after exclusion of the contam- 



28 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1981 



inants the "lectohapantotypes" and those excluded the "paralecto- 
hapantotypes" (God help us!)? I assume that it is also possible for 
the parasitologist to make several slides of each stage from the 
blood samples that he takes from the host. Are the several sets 
of all the stages the "synhapantotypes" and one of the sets the 
potential "lectohapantotype", the others then becoming the 
"paralectohapantotypes" (again God help us!)? To gain a different 
perspective on this question, assume a theoretical case of a 
scyphozoan requiring not only the adult medusa but also the 
scyphistoma and the ephyra for adequate characterization of the 
species. It would seem logical to consider one set of (reared?) 
scyphistoma/ephyra/medusa the hapantotype; additional sets 
would then be parahapantotypes. Obviously, if the establishing 
author had several sets but did not indicate one of them as the 
hapantotype, then the compound syn-, lecto-, and paralecto- terms 
would come into play, but I don't see the need for "holohapanto- 
type". Whatever is intended, the meanings should be clarified. 

'At first, I agreed with the opinion of Drs. Bray and Holthuis 
that the application of hapantotypes not be confined to 
protozoa. On further consideration, however, I have come around 
to the view that the hapantotype provision should, in daily practice, 
be limited to these special, probably unique, organisms. In those 
metazoans with complex hfe histories that include several dissimilar 
stages (and there are many: coelenterates, annelids of several sorts, 
insects, crustaceans, mollusks, echinoderms, even fishes, to mention 
the most obvious), the species usually can be characterised by a 
single stage; once the hfe cycle is worked out, all the stages are 
recognisable and identifiable. In some instances, one or more 
stages in the life cycle may be morphologically identical in several 
related species, and cannot be identified unless reared to some stage 
or condition that is morphologically unique. The hapantotype 
provision in no way alters the situation. It does not make it possible 
to identify unknowns, and it does not make the basic definition 
of a new species any more useful. If applied to certain crustaceans, 
for example, it might preclude describing a species until all stages 
are obtained by rearing, and it would preclude having a lectotype 
in the usual sense. I do not think anything is gained by it. There- 
fore, I would prefer to see hapantotypes restricted to those 
protozoan parasites where they are necessary for definition of the 
species, because opening them up to all animal groups would open 
up Pandora's Box in ways that we might well regret'. 

Professor Holthuis wrote again in February 1980, but 
without adducing any fresh arguments. 

The hapantotype proposal represents a large, new and radical 
step in the direction of adapting the Code to the needs of present- 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt I , February 1 98 1 29 

day zoology. I therefore make no apology for providing this 
extensive documentation with the Voting Paper. The proposal as 
here presented is the fruit of work extending over three years and 
1 hope you will consider it worthy of careful consideration 

^t the close of the voting period on 16 September 1980 the 
state ot the voting was as follows: 

A ^B'^f}^^^ ^°*^^ ~ ^^^t^^" ^'5) received in the following 
order: Melville, Nye, Coriiss, Brinck, Hahn, Halvorsen, Willink 
Kraus, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Yokes, Binder' 
Sabrosky, Ride ' 

Negative Votes - Holthuis, Alvarado 

Dupuis and Bayer abstained. No voting papers were returned 
by Bernardi Habe, Heppell, Cogger, Tortonese and Welch 

rnmn^icc-^. ?w?^''°"'"'^"*' "^^'^ '^"t in by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

,T thic^''^.'''fV°*^- ^°'-*^^ introduction of hapantotypes, but only 

of Or wi V"^ ^T '' '*"''^y "°"^^"^^ t° P^°t°^oa- In the comment 
of Dr Wil hams see a tendency to extend it also to Cnidaria and 
perhaps other phyla. If the medusae of several related species are 
ranfv'fittv' " ^" ""''''' P°^^P^ ^^y '^ selectellTtypel 
Yokes: 'Reluctantly.' 

ivP Pv.^f'"!^'"' '* ^""^ u^'^^ "^'^^ ^^^ '^^^^'■' consistent and exhaust- 
presented ' ''''" ^ '^' ^'"'''^'y '° '^' ^^ff^^^"t objections 
Bayer: 'It is with regret that I abstain from voting in this 

vote forZ""' '"'' f^^^f' '^^ P^^^'^^P^^ *"^°l^^d' but neither can 
vote for the complex terminology proposed for what is nothing 
but a set of syntypes. If adopted, "hapantotype" and its numerouf 

^rbrinrth^e'roH^'r '!i"^^r^ ^'^ lecto-,'para-, etc inevit b" 
will bnng the Code into ridicule and invite the contempt of manv 
zoologists who already consider it too complex.' "'^""P' ""^ ""^"^ 

DECLARATION OF RESULT OF VOTE 

I hereby declare that the votes cast on V.P.(80)17 were cast 
as set out above that the proposal contained in he voting pape 
uSt t'he" r"^'' '^°P''^ ^.h'^' ^^^"^^^^ two-thirds major"fy^a^nd 

nto the Cod^TnT" T" ^"^°^PT*^ '^' P^°P°^^d amendment 
into the Code, in accordance with the authority given to it by the 
Division of Zoology of lUBS at Helsinki, in words to be preDared 
by the Editorial Committee for the Commission's approval. 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London. 7OcTl980 



30 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 



THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL 

NOMENCLATURE 

RESULT OF VOTE ON PROPOSALS FOR SUBSTANTIVE 

AMENDMENTS (FIFTH INSTALMENT). Z.N.(S.)1973 

By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature 

This report presents the result of the Commission's vote on 
the proposal to admit names proposed for ichnotaxa and parataxa 
to zoological nomenclature and to provide that such names do not 
compete in priority with names proposed for animals themselves. 
These proposals were first published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, 
pp. 11-14. They formed part of the Commission's report to the 
Section on Zoological Nomenclature of lUBS at Helsinki (vol. 36, 
pp. 211-212), part B, paras 1-4. They were approved by the 
Special Session of the Commission at Stensoffa, by the General 
Meeting of the Commission at Helsinki; they were also approved 
by the Section on Zoological Nomenclature and the Division of 
Zoology at Helsinki. 

On 4 July 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)18 for or against the proposals presented in the follow- 
ing form : 

Code Article Commission Report to Section on Zoological 
Nomenclature at Helsinki, 1979, Section B 

2 1 . To provide that zoological nomenclature 

(Sixth Draft) applies to the names of fossils of the work of 
animals or their traces (but not secretions), even 
though they have not been related to any organism 
in the animal kingdom that caused them. The term 
ichnotaxa is used to describe such entities. Article 
1 of the Code provides for fossils of the work of 
animals and it is implicit in that Article that they 
must be regarded as representing taxonomic units 
of animals. Since some such fossils have never been 
related to the organism that have have caused them 
the Code should state explicitly that zoological 
nomenclature applies to their names (Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol.36: 11-14). 

24 2. To provide that names given specially to 

ichnotaxa do not compete in priority at genus- 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 31 



group level with names given to nominal taxa of 
recognized organisms in the Animal Kingdom and 
that names given to ichnotaxa at the level of the 
genus group be treated as the names of collective 
groups. Names given specially to ichnotaxa would 
be treated at genus level in the same manner as 
collective groups and at any level, notwithstanding 
Art. 24 b (iii), they must not compete in priority 
with names given to taxa of the animal that made 
the work or traces {Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36: 11-14) 

3. To provide that zoological nomenclature 
applies to names given to fossils of fragmentary or 
detached parts of animals that are classified in 
artificial taxa as though they were genera and 
species. The term parataxa is used to describe such 
entities. At present Article 1 excludes from zoolog- 
ical nomenclature names that are not applied to 
"taxonomic units of animals known to occur in 
nature". Since dual nomenclatures exist in practice 
the matter would be made explicit in the Code 
(Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36: 11-14). 

4. To provide that names given specifically to 
parataxa do not compete in priority with names 
given to nominal taxa of recognized organisms in 
the Animal Kingdom. As in the case of ichnotaxa 
(2 above), and notwithstanding Art. 24 b (i), the 
names of parataxa would not compete in priority. 

The following background paper was sent out with the voting 
paper. (Subsequent objections to the proposals concerning parataxa 
were received from workers inconodonts: Dr Bergstro'm (Geological 
Survey of Sweden), Dr Lennart Jeppson (University of Lund, 
Sweden) and Professor Walter Sweet (University of Ohio, Columbus, 
Ohio) but these were either too late for circulation to the Commis- 
sion, or presented difficulties that could not be resolved in time.) 

V.P.(80)18- APPENDIX 

Background to, and comments on, the proposals 

Paragraphs 1 and 2. Ichnotaxa (trace fossils) 

EC: recommended 
Stensoffa: recommended with one contrary vote 



32 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1981 



The proposals now before the Commission originated in an 
appUcation by Professor Otto Kraus and the late Professor Walther 
Hantzschel for the regulation of names given to trace fossils after 
1930. This was published, together with a number of related 
comments, in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 29, pp. 137-141, 1972. Two 
later comments in support (by Professor E. Voigt and Dr. Ellis 
Yochelson) and one in opposition (by the late Dr. Lemche) were 
published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30, pp. 69-71. The underlying 
cause for this application was that names for trace fossils are avail- 
able under the Code if published before 1931, but not if published 
after 1930. Thus, in Part W of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleon- 
tology (Second Edition), 1975, roughly 118 generic names are 
available and about 124 are not, among those treated as 'valid'. 
Some action is clearly called for to rectify this anomaly, which 
arises from a decision of the Paris (1948) Congress {Bull zool. Nom. 
vol. 4, p. 255) to treat a description of the work of an animal as 
an indication for the purposes of the Code. 

The rapid and extensive growth of such geological disciplines 
as sedimentology and environmental geology has led to a correspond- 
ing growth in the study of trace fossils as indicators of environ- 
mental conditions and changes in them. Although some of the 
earliest workers named what they took to be traces of plants, nearly 
all are now, on good analogical grounds, ascribed to animals (and 
there is, of course, no intention of applying our Code to organisms 
now considered not to be animals). There is an undeniable need for 
a set of scientific names for use in communicating ideas about 
these trace fossils, and for a set of rules to govern those names. 

Until 1972, most workers in this field ignored the Paris 
ruling referred to and applied the zoological Code in naming trace 
fossils - with one important reservation: a number of genera of 
trace fossils was described without any included species, and hence 
without any originally designated type species (indeed, many genera 
are without included species to this day). Such names are doubly 
unavailable. 

An important - and, for zoologists, a disturbing — develop- 
ment occurred in 1973. Sarjeant & Kennedy, Canadian J. Earth 
Sci., vol. 10, pp. 460-475, published a draft code of nomenclature 
for trace fossils that was modelled closely on the International Code 
of Botanical Nomenclature (Professor Sarjeant is a palynologist), 
because that code was found to be more adaptable and receptive 
than ours. Unfortunately, this draft code proposed to introduce 
into the nomenclature of elements of the animal kingdom certain 
nomenclatural concepts that are quite foreign to our Code. Its 
formal adoption was proposed to the International Union of 
Geological Sciences at the 25th International Geological Congress, 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 33 



Sydney, 1976; but the Secretary-General of lUGS assured me that 
no final decision on it would be taken without consultation and 
discussion with lUBS. 

In the event, the Sarjeant & Kennedy proposals did not find 
favour among ichnologists as a whole, most of whom continued to 
treat their objects of study as elements of the animal kingdom. 
In 1 977 I was approached by Dr. Paul Basan, editor of the Ichnology 
Newsletter, with a request for news of progress with the original 
Kraus and Hantzschel application to the Commission. 

At the time all my spare energy was taken up with the work 
of the Committee on Typification of Species of Protozoa, and it 
was not until July 1978 that I was able to present the subject to 
the Editorial Committee, during one of its meetings in London. The 
results of that meeting, incorporating the matters on which you are 
now asked to vote, were published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, 
pp. 11-14, July 1979. Put in simple terms, the Editorial Committee 
saw no need for a separate code of 'ichnonomenclature'. All that 
was necessary to adapt our Code to the requirements of ichnologists 
was to provide (1) that names given to trace fossils as such should 
be available regardless of date, but that they should not compete in 
priority with names given to the causative organisms, and (2) that 
the provisions of Article 13b should not apply to them. These 
proposals were reported to, and warmly welcomed by. Dr. Basan 
{Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. , Palaeoecol. vol. 28 (1-2), September 
1979). (He did not approve either of the publication of the 
Sarjeant & Kennedy draft code alongside his paper, or of that code 
itself.) 

Meanwhile, in November 1979, I received an enquiry from 
Dr. Richard Bromley {Copenhagen University) on the state of the 
Commission's examination of this problem. This resulted in a joint 
paper by him and Dr. F. Fuersich in Bull zool. Nom. vol. 37, 
pp. 6-10. This paper demonstrated a need for the extension of the 
proposed provisions to cover traces of extant animals. However, 
the Special Meeting of the Commission at Stensoffa decided not to 
recommend inclusion of a provision governing all names based on 
the work of animals regardless of date. The Editorial Committee's 
proposals were also welcomed by Professor Anders Martinsson, 
Chairman of the International Commission on Stratigraphy and of 
the International Palaeontological Association. 

In February 1980 I received a letter from Dr. W. Struve 
{Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Frankfurt, BRD). I find it 
difficult to decide whether this letter really attacks the proposals 
as strongly as it appears to do, for in some passages it seems to 
accept them. In fairness to Dr. Struve I reproduce his letter in full, 
so that members of the Commission may make up their own minds: 



34 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 



'In the course of years, nomenclature apparently estranged so 
much from its original intention that even a loyalist is going to lose 
inclination to open the Code book. Therefore, the ideas of 
enriching the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature by 
introducing Parataxonomy and Paranomenclature and Ichnotaxon- 
omy and Ichnonomenclature are alarming and point out the short 
memory and fast-moving time in science. As I remember, about a 
quarter of a century ago the scientists of this house (among them 
commissioners resp. ex-commissioners) were relieved that the 
"para"-ideas had sunk into oblivion and that a schisma breaking up 
through nomenclature had been avoided. It is deplorable that 
valuable time has to be detracted from actual research in order to 
be spent for this matter again. 

'In principle, everybody is allowed to classify everything he 
wants and to mark or name every unit and element of his system as 
he likes — by pictography, by letters, by numbers or even by actual 
words or "names". And everybody may publish and distribute these 
achievements freely, too. 

'A large group of scientists has agreed by good reasons to 
estabhsh a(n artificial) system of order and naming, called the 
"Linnean" one and being subject to distinct rules. 

'The actual problem is now, to prevent the para-taxonomies 
and -nomenclatures from entering the Linnean System and the 
Linnean Nomenclature. Once introduced in the Code and becoming 
reputable, the "paras" would spread like metastases. 

'That means that the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature has to stay restricted to all Taxa and Names that 
are subject to the Linnean System and the Linnean way of Nomen- 
clature as intended by the first author traditionally or maybe 
expressis verbis in future. It is irrelevant in this connection whether 
the Linnean System is a natural or artificial one. 

'The introduction of a new taxon and a new name must not 
be made dependent from 

— the state of preservation and percentage of body avail- 
able for research, 

— the sex, 

— the ontogenetic stage of the respective object, etc. 
'Since there are actual differences between recent and fossil 

documents, non-obedience of those principles will provoke a 
schisma between zoological and palaeozoological nomenclature. 
'My opinion is substantiated as follows: 
(1 ) Completeness of material: Quite generally, fossil material 
is incomplete or fragmentary. The possibiUty of discrim- 
ination and determination of fossils does not depend 
upon percentage of available body or skeleton parts but 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 35 



from systematic value of the documents which is a 
matter of knowledge, experience and intuition. The 
systematics of fossil mammals is based largely on teeth 
(and exceptionally by more complete dentitions). A 
substantial group of Carboniferous trilobites can be 
defined and determined the best and the easiest by 
means of their genal spines (BRAUCKMANN, 1978), 
being with about 2% of hard parts much more than a 
mammal tooth, but the remaining 98% of the carapace 
being largely the nice carrier of the small decisive "rest". 

(2) Sex: Even in case of complete knowledge about sexes in 
the respective recent groups it may be difficult to 
identify males and females among their fossil predecess- 
ors. In several important fossil groups there is a discuss- 
ion but no compelling knowledge about sexual 
dimorphism (e.g., trilobites, brachiopods). 

(3) Ontogenetic stage: The eminent importance of early 
ontogenetic stages in taxonomy and systematics of 
several fossil groups is well known since long, e.g. by 
the embryonic chambers of ammonoids and dacryocon- 
arids. Many ammonoids are characterized by the details 
of early coils, others by the properties of late adult to 
gerontic coils. The extraordinary importance of protaspid 
and meraspid stages of ontogeny for discrimination 
and determination of Middle Cambriaq^ trilobite species 
has been pointed out convincingly by SNAJDR (1958). 

(4) Characters of soft body and of body fluids being so 
important for several recent animal groups are (with 
almost no exception) unknown from fossil animals. 

T beheve that the unity of zoological and palaeozoological 
nomenclature is not only desirable but even absolutely necessary. 
This unity can only be maintained if the decision upon the possib- 
ility of discrimination and the reasoning for the introduction of a 
name is reserved for the sound discernment and the risk of the 
specialist. 

'A special comment seems necessary concerning "ichnotaxa" 
and nomenclature of those. I see no reason to treat them separate 
from ordinary taxonomy and nomenclature: 

'In palaeontology there is no sharp boundary between "body 
fossils" and "trace-fossils". The difference is especially spoiled 
between external casts of body fossils and repose imprints 
(Cubichnia). As the most famous example, I name the Pre- or 
Eocambrian Xenusion auerswaldae which is included promptly and 
legitimately as well in "Protarthropoda" (vol. O) as in "Trace 
Fossils" (vol. IV) of the "Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology" 



36 Bull. zooL Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 



[but not in the Second Edition, 1975, of Vol.W. R.V.M.] 

This problematics touches especially the exciting chapter 
of Pre-cambrian life on which both palaeontologists and zoologists 
will have great interest to discuss and to use one nomenclature 
only. Special attention is drawn to the large group of so-called 
"worms" and worm-like trace fossils which in part are documents 
of highbred "palaeopsychic" efficiency and will allow better defin- 
itions of fossils especially by consequent apphcation of computer 
analysis than does a study of a cast of some kind of segmented or 
non-segmented hose-hke body. 

'I believe it is no tragedy if an extinct animal bears different 
names both for its body and for its manifestation of Ufe, or even 
if the animal gets the name of its trace because of the law of 
priority. In my opinion the frequency of (temporary!) different 
names for body parts, sexes, larvae, ecological forms and traces is 
generally over-dramatized. Synonymy of this provenience has a 
share of less than 5%, probably less than 1%; such a small share 
is praiseworthy of a science as palaeontology displaying an 
explosive development in exploring extremely difficult and im- 
perfect documents. 

'As experience shows, the greatest share of "synonymies" 
in palaeozoology and in part also in zoology is caused by quite 
different reasons: 

— different scientific approach to taxonomic valuation 
of species, subspecies and formae; 

— overlooking of pre-published hterature; 

— shifting of meaning of species or subspecies contents 
by wrong determination. 

'Furthermore, the actual dangers for taxonomy and nomen- 
clature threaten from the great inadequateness of efforts to clear 
up the avalanche of knowledge in a simple, intelligible and 
reproducible way. 

'One important approach towards improvement of this situat- 
ion will be to cut down the code of nomenclature to simple and 
clear prescriptions and to avoid any load which might be likely to 
shunt nomenclature from a handy tool of scientific communication 
to an end in itself. 

'In our institution is striven since many decades to obey the 
code of nomenclature strictly. However, it becomes more and more 
difficult to convince scientists and authors of the advantages of an 
unambiguous nomenclature if such praised quahties vanish under a 
tangle of confusing and turgid regulations, exceptions, deadhnes 
etc.. It should be emphasized that the Commission bears a high 
responsibility for enabling all responsible editorial staffs of relevant 
hterature to work economically. 



Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 37 



'Therefore, I hope that the present Commission on Zoologic- 
al Nomenclature will avoid to add new burden to the Code but 
engrave itself on the annals of nomenclature to have provided 
zoology and palaeontology with the simplest, clearest and shortest 
nomenclature ever made.' 

Dr. Struve's letter covers both ichnotaxonomy and paratax- 
onomy, considered in the next section of this report. In reply I 
pointed out that the degree of complexity of the Code merely 
reflected the complex behaviour of zoologists. I said that it is not 
a question of preventing parataxonomies and paranomenclatures 
from entering the Linnean system; they were already there before 
the 1905 Regies were written. Our business is to find a way of 
regulating these parallel nomenclatures (which reflect parallel 
taxonomies) without causing chaos. 

Dr. Kerzhner {Academy of Sciences, Leningrad) also showed 
a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Editorial Committee's 
proposals and thought that ichnotaxa and parataxa could be 
provided for by a single rule. He thought it would be better to 
proceed case by case, by Opinions, in deciding what fragments or 
traces of what animals do not compete in priority with names pur- 
porting to be based on the animals themselves, and that an Official 
List of Parataxa should thus be built up. I fear that he grossly 
underestimates the extra work that this would inflict on the 
Commission's already overstretched resources. 

Dr. Holthuis (July 1979) expressed disquiet at the introduct- 
ion of proposals concerning ichnotaxa and parataxa after the 
publication of the Sixth Draft of the Third Edition of the Code. 
As has been seen, however, those most concerned with ichnotaxa 
welcomed these proposals; and it will be seen that the volume of 
comment on parataxa (though revealing widespread misunderstand- 
ing) shows that those concerned were well aware of the proposals 
published in July 1979. 

Dr. Holthuis (June 1980) expressed his opposition to the 
introduction of the concepts of parataxa and ichnotaxa into the 
Code as follows: 

'(1) The Editorial Committee published the proposal to 
introduce these concepts into the Code as late as July 1979, i.e., 
more than Wi years after the draft for the third edition of the 
Code had been presented for comment to zoologists (in November 
1977). Neither concept was mentioned in the draft and the 1979 
proposal could not be considered a comment on any part of the 
draft: it was adding entirely new matter to it. Zoologists who 
bought the draft (both before and after July 1979) were not auto- 
matically informed that new fundamental additions to the Code 
had been proposed, even less what these additions amounted to. 



38 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 



Only those, unfortunately very few, zoologists who regularly con- 
sulted the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature would know of 
them. Although the procedure adopted in handling this matter is 
fully legal, it might give the impression of not being quite ethical, 
the more so as, in order to enable the insertion of the new concepts 
into the new Code by 1980, the whole procedure was rushed and 
voting is taking place after the shortest possible interval. That 
interval in this very fundamental issue is far shorter than those 
that as a rule occur in the most simple applications to the Comm- 
ission. 

'(2) The term parataxa, although not mentioned in the 
circulated draft of the new Code, was not new to nomenclature. 
In the well-known (1957-1958) Bradley draft of the first edition 
of the present Code, the introduction of this term had also been 
proposed. However, after long (and often heated) discussions 
during the Colloquium on Nomenclature of the XV International 
Congress of Zoology at London (1958), at which numerous 
zoologists were present, the inclusion of the concept parataxa into 
the Code was rejected with a substantial majority. The Commission 
should avoid that zoologists will get the impression that an effort 
is made now to get this item, which was definitely rejected in 
1958, into the Code through a back door, something which in no 
way can be the intention of the Editorial Committee or the Comm- 
ission. 

'(3) The introduction of a special nomenclature for parataxa 
and one for ichnotaxa, together with the existing one for collective 
groups, makes for three nomenclatures parallel with the normal 
rules. Comparing the three, one finds that nomenclaturally the 
generic names on the parataxa-, ichnotaxa- and collective group- 
levels are fully identical: in all three cases the generic names are to 
be treated as normal generic names, except for the fact that they 
do not compete for Priority with other generic names. While in 
ichnotaxa and collective groups the specific names are not different 
at all from normal specific names, in parataxa the specific names 
do not compete for Priority with other specific names. This means 
that the generic names of all three categories and the specific names 
of parataxa are provisional names that can be used as long as the 
Ufe stage has not been identified with the adult stage (in collective 
groups), the trace has not been hnked to the causative organism 
(in ichnotaxa), or the assemblage of parts has not been linked to 
the complete animal (in parataxa). As soon as the hnks are estab- 
Ushed the provisional names have to give way to the names of the 
adult, causative or complete organisms. It would be sufficient to 
use a single term for this type of provisional name (e.g., collective 
genus name and collective species name), regardless of whether it 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 39 



is used for (1) a stage in the life cycle, (2) a trace, (3) an assemblage 
of parts that cannot (or not yet) be definitely assigned to a natural 
taxon, or (4) any other artifical taxon. To decide whether a certain 
taxon needs a provisional name is the task of the taxonomist, not 
that of the Code. According to the Preamble the Code may not 
"restrict the freedom of taxonomic thought or action", it can allow 
the use of such provisional names and define them nomenclaturally. 

'(4) The present problem is too comphcated to be decided 
upon without a more careful consideration of its various aspects, 
and a decision at this moment seems ill-justified.' 

Dr. Holthuis's final objection may be answered as follows: it 
is not at all the purpose of the Editorial Committee's proposals to 
decide whether a certain taxon is to be given a name in one nomen- 
clature or another; once a taxonomist has taken the relevant 
decision, it is for the Code to provide an orderly means whereby he 
can communicate that decision within the framework of the Code. 
It is, moreover, unrealistic to suppose that names given to ichnotaxa 
and parataxa are provisional. In nearly all cases their permanence is 
as certain as anything can be in the world of nomenclature. 

Paragraphs 3 and 4. Para taxonomy and paranomenclature 

The problem that is addressed here is, as already mentioned, 
the long-continued existence of parallel taxonomies in certain 
animal groups, reflected in parallel nomenclatures. Whenever a 
taxon in one of these taxonomies (at species-group, genus-group 
or family-group level) is matched with one or several taxa in the 
other taxonomy. Article 24b of the existing Code comes into play: 
i.e., one of the names must be rejected in favour of the other. This 
causes no problem when a soundly-based one-to-one match is 
estabhshed between one taxon in one taxonomy and one taxon in 
the other; the Law of Priority can be appUed and, if this causes 
confusion, recourse may be had to the Commission. But this is 
a very unusual event, even if it has ever occurred. It is much more 
common for a single parataxon to match with a number of 'natural' 
taxa (i.e., taxa based on the animals themselves). If, in such a situat- 
ion, the parataxon was named first, then all the names of the taxa 
based on the animals themselves become junior synonyms. But 
when the latter (if species) belong in different genera, or (if genera) 
in different families, the consequence is nomenclatural chaos. The 
problem goes further than that, however: the Code, by forcing the 
name of the parataxon as the vahd name of a number of taxon- 
omically separated animal-based taxa, constricts taxonomic 
freedom and thus exceeds its own authority. These points do not 
appear to have been made in the earlier discussions of this subject, 



40 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 



but it is hoped that they will show the urgency of the problem. 

The following are examples of groups in which parallel tax- 
onomies and nomenclature exist: 



Class 



Order 



Comment 



Gastropoda Fossils are classified only on the shell. 

Extant forms are classified on the radula, 
genitalia and operculum as well as the 
shell. Assigning fossil forms to taxa based 
on extant types thus entails a measure of 
speculation. 

Cephalopoda Ammonoidea Aptychi (whether opercular or radular in 

function) can be classified in genera and 
species that do not match the genera and 
species based on phragmocones. 
In cases of supposed sexual dimorphism, 
taxa of presumed females (macroconchs) 
do not always correspond to taxa of 
presumed males (microconchs) below 
generic level. 

Holothuroidea Only detached spicules are known fossil. 

The genera and species in which these are 
classified bear no relation to those of the 
extant forms. 



Pisces Selachii Only the teeth are known fossil. 

Batoidea Their classification does not match that 

of the extant forms, based on body form, 
number of vertebrae, etc. 

These dual taxonomies reflect pragmatic necessities imposed 
by the nature of the evidence with which zoologists and palaeontol- 
ogists have to deal (Dr. Struve's 'difficult documents'). The removal 
of those necessities by improved research is an ideal which can be 
approached only asymptotically. So long as they persist, the dual 
taxonomies will persist, and so will the corresponding nomenclatures. 
In the conononts, for example, there is a slow movement towards 
an apparatus-based classification. But conodont workers do not 
seem to understand that the valid binomen for an apparatus-species 
must combine the oldest element-based generic name with the 
oldest element-based epithet, and that this produces names that 
represent no coherent taxonomic concepts. 

The Editorial Committee's proposal — essentially that these 
parallel nomenclatures should not compete with each other for the 



Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1981 41 



purposes of the Law of Priority - restores to taxonomists the free- 
dom that the rigid application of Article 24b would remove. The 
decision as to when a parallel taxonomy is a pragmatic necessity 
in a given group is still left to the scientists concerned, as is the 
allocation of taxa between those taxonomies and their gradual re- 
duction to one. 

Comments on the Committee's proposals have mostly 
expressed disquiet at the possible introduction of a general licence 
to set up separate systems of nomenclature for any fragment of an 
animal. This is, of course, not the Committee's intention. Such 
disquiet can be set at rest by careful drafting, and the Committee 
will pay special attention to this. 

Those who have expressed disquiet of this sort include 
Professor G. Hahn, Dr. Heinz Malz (Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 
Frankfurt, BRD), Dr. R.W. Huddleston {Chevron Oil Field Research 
Co., La Habra, California) (in press, with my reply, in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol 37; copies of the proofs are enclosed). Dr. Jan Bergstrom 
(Sveriges Geologiska Undersokning) and Dr. Lennart Jeppson 
{University of Lund, Sweden). I have replied to all these 
correspondents explaining the Committee's proposals more fully, 
and none has sought to prolong the discussion. 

The matter is therefore now referred to the Commission for a 
vote, on the understanding that the final drafting remains a matter 
for the Editorial Committee. 

On 11 September 1980 (when 13 votes had already been 
returned) Dr C.W. Sabrosky sent the following letter to all members 
of the Commission: 

'Ichnotaxa and parataxa 

'The proposed rules on these two items have been before us 
for some time, and you may already have voted. However, recent 
discussions with paleontologists here in Washington and the receipt 
of the signed communication from the Pander group (conodont 
specialists) have convinced me that we have not fully explored the 
attitude of paleontologists on the subjects. I was astonished at the 
depth and intensity of opposition, especially to parataxa, and I 
have concluded that it would be wise not to adopt that proposal 
at this time but to consider more thoroughly what is involved. 

T know that Secretary Melville, himself a paleontologist, 
warmly and strongly supports the proposals. But I find paleontolog- 
ists of equal repute strongly and even bitterly opposed to them. As 
a bystander who has no need or use for either parataxa or 
ichnotaxa, I am puzzled, and I am unwilling to proceed until I am 
sure that overwhelming or at least majority opinion among paleon- 
tologists is in favour of the steps. I would not wish to find the 
Commission storming the enemy's fortress only to look around and 



42 Bull zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 



find only sparse troops behind us. 

'It does seem to me that ichnotaxa and parataxa present 
different situations, and I will discuss them separately. 

'Ichnotaxa 

'It is clear in the disucssion that the real problem of the 
ichnologists lies in the rule that names based on the work of animals 
are unavailable after 1930. Remove this, as we have done by 
removing it from indications, and their major problem is solved. I 
would treat the genus-group names as collective-group names, as 
most probably are. However, I would just as soon apply priority at 
the species-group level. It is rare that there will be any complication. 

'I was impressed by the three comments by Martinsson, 
Teichert and Frey (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 29, pp. 140-141). I there- 
fore approve paragraphs 1 and 2 of V.P.(80)18, except for species- 
group names being exempted from priority. 

'Parataxa 

'Re parataxa, I received, both directly and through the 
Secretary, the statement from the Pander group, as well as telephone 
calls from Professor Sweet of Ohio State University and Dr 
Repetski, U.S. Geological Survey. Dr Repetski, at my request, 
arranged a discussion meeting and I subsequently had long 
discussions in depth with paleontologists ElHs Yochelson and 
Porter Kier. I was astonished at the strong feeling against the 
proposal and the — to me - cogent arguments that were advanced. 
Most of these were along the lines of Struve and Holthuis (chiefly 
his point 3). They pooh-poohed the idea of chaos. They believed 
that approval of dual nomenclature would cause neglect of, and 
even inhibit, soUd zoological studies. Conodonts were used as an 
example of a group in which advancing knowledge had overtaken 
earlier and vaguer knowledge and the group is being put on an 
ever firmer footing, without resort to parataxa. Most hold that 
individual and unidentifiable parts, such as holothurian spicules 
or crinoid columnals, should not be named at all, but referred to, 
if needed, by some other system. 

'I believe that the concept and practice of collective groups 
can also be extended to parataxa. The difference is, of course, that 
species in the collective groups of parasitologists can be identified, 
and ultimately their life cycles worked out and the specific name 
taken into the regular zoological classification, either as a valid 
name or as a synonym. Presumably this will seldom be possible for 
the "species" of parataxa, which may have come from various 
species of animals. But the genera can be considered as collective 
groups. 

'I am not sure that Article 1 can be correctly said to exclude 
parataxa. It depends how one reads "names given to taxonomic 



Bull, zool Nom., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1981 43 

units of animals known to occur in nature", the animals or the t.x. 
(taxonomic units)? If parataxa are considered artiStaxa that do 

nr.co H ^"^ therefore persuaded to vote against oarataxa p^ 

Dr SabroskHr",','"!?" k™" '^"^ P""''" Society mentioned by 

The undersigned members of the Pander Society the infer 
national orgamsation of conodont worlcers repres'enOni 7? 
19sn w\"' """='!"« '" Vienna and Prague from 4 to 9 August 
men°s TOs' wa?th'""f^ ?"''""'"' "'^ '"*« °f *e suJiect ame^d- 

in the ZntLTnal CoS°e7, iTts^S'' "r^"^'^'"" ^^ ^""-^O 

Additionally, almost all fossils may be considered oarataxa 



44 



Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 



parts are lacking. Thus, for example, a complete ammonoid shell 
(phragmocone) represents in reality a parataxon. Accordingly, it 
is extremely difficult if not impossible to differentiate between 
fossil taxa and parataxa. We are convinced that the adoption of the 
amendments concerning parataxa would undermine the stabiUty 
of nomenclature of all fossil animal groups. 

'Prior to the mid-1960's conodonts were considered in effect 
as parataxa (or form taxa), as almost all conodont workers dealt 
exclusively with isolated skeletal elements. Since that time, 
however, tremendous progress has been achieved in basing 
taxonomy on reconstructions of the conodont apparatus, which 
represents the entire skeleton. In the resulting nomenclature, strict 
application of the International Code (especially Articles 23 and 24) 
has been followed. This taxonomy and nomenclature is now being 
used in the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (1980, in press), 
in the Catalogue of Conodonts (vols 1 to 3, 1973-1977; vol. 4 is in 
preparation), and by virtually all recent conodont workers. This 
contradicts point no. 5 in the discussion of Paranomenclature (Bull, 
zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 12, 1979). The Pander Society has held 
several meetings at which the adoption of the above-mentioned 
procedure was advocated to promote stability of nomenclature. 
General agreement has been reached since the 1971 meeting in 
Germany to follow Articles 23 and especially 24. The re-introduction 
of parataxonomy into conodont taxonomy would destroy all of the 
progress towards a natural taxonomy. The negative effects of these 
amendments will similarly produce nomenclatural chaos among 
other groups of fossils. 

'We, the undersigned members of the Pander Society meeting 
in Vienna and Prague and representing conodont workers from 25 
countries, emphatically support the position expressed in this letter.' 

'The above letter bore the following signatures: 



Australia 


Dr Ruth Mawson 


China (People's 


Dr C.Y. Wang 




Mr Stephen Carey 


Republic) 




Austria 


Dr M.F. Buchrothner 


Czechoslovakia 


Dr R. Mock 




Dr Fritz Ebert 




Dr J. Papsova 




Dr F. Neubauer 


France 


Dr C. Cygan 




Dr H.P. Schonlaub 




Dr M.F. Ferret 


Belgium 


Dr Pierre Bultynck 


Germany (Federal 


Prof. Dr H. Beckmann 




Dr R. Dreesen 


Republic) 


Dr H. Reguadt 




Dr E. HouUeberghs 




Dr D. Stoppel 


Bulgaria 


Dr K. Budurov 




Dr K. Weddige 


Canada 


Prof. C.R. Barnes 




Prof. Dr W. Ziegler 




Dr P.H. von Bitter 


Germany 


Dr H. Kozur 




Prof. Brian Chatterton 


(Democratic 






Prof. Lars Fahraeus 


Republic) 






Dr David Kennedy 


Hungary 


Dr S. Kovacs 



Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1981 45 



Iran 

Israel 

Italy 



Japan 



Libya 

Netherlands 

Poland 



Romania 
South Korea 
Spain 

Sweden 



Dr B. Hamdi 
Dr F. Hirsch 
Miss G. Bagnoli 
Miss M.C. Perri 
Miss C. Spalletta 
Prof. G.B. Vai 
Prof. H. Igo 
Prof. T. Koike 
Dr Y. Kuwano 
Dr A. Shuko 
Dr A.W. Ghaziry 
Dr M. v.d. Boogaard 
Dr J. Dzik 
Dr W. Bednarczyk 
Dr H. Szaniawski 
Dr E. Mirauta 
Prof. H.Y. Lee 
Dr C.A. Mendez 
Dr R. Menendez 
Dr L. Jeppson 
Dr A. Lofgren 



United Kingdom 



U.S.A. 



Yugoslavia 



Dr R. Aldridge 
Dr R. Austin 
Dr M.J. Reynolds 
Prof. S. Bergstrom 
Dr J. Baesemann 
Mr T.R. Can- 
Prof. David Clark 
Prof. R.L. Ethington 
Prof. Gilbert Klapper 
Dr H.R. Lane 
Prof. J. Miller 
Prof. G. MerriU 
Prof. M.A. Murphy 
Dr John Repetski 
Dr C.A. Sandberg 
Prof. N. Savage 
Prof. W. Sweet 
Miss T. Kolar 
Prof. A. Ramovs 
Dr M. Sudar 



The foUowing non-members of the Pander Society but interested 
palaeontologists studying other fossils, have also signed: interested 



A ustralia 

Canada 

Czechoslovakia 



Prof. J. Talent 
Prof. P. Lespe'rance 
Dr Ivo Chlupac 



members' of^th^'r.'"'''"^-^'' ^^"^"^""ication was circulated to the 
Stary: Commission with the following note from the 

'First, I admit that my knowledge of the taxonomic oroeress 
Bull^'^nnr^ ''"^^'^ ^'^ °"' °^ ^''' ^hen I wrote Te repoH 
dear th^ ^^t '^^^ ^^^P^^g^^Ph 5 on p. 12 is referred to) It ^ 
clear that the two parallel taxonomies that formerly existed in 

Z'iteTo'fZiltt'' '''^' '''^-' '^ -^ over^most:^ff'nit 
noc>- '^^''^"dly, it is still true that the nature and taxonomic 
beTfed '^" '^onodont-bearing animal is unknown. It cannot 
be stated as a certainty that a conodont apparatus represents a 
whole anima , or only a detached organ of a whole aniLal 

of casuTstrv ^I'n nr.T"'?.' '^'' '" ^°''^'' ^'' P^^^taxa is a piece 
not found riprf^ ^^^ ^op^plete gradation" mentioned is 
not lound. There are fossils - the vast majority - that can he 

othtf""n'ott'fe '° ^S"^^"^ ^" ^"^^^ -"-^^ and'the'rTar 
to reDresen^\h/? ~ l^"' '"" T^^^ '^"^' confidence be said not 
to represent the same taxa as those in which the fossils of the 



46 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1981 



former group can be classified. Yet the fossils in this latter group 
can be classified in genera and species of their own, that do not 
correspond, one-for-one, with the genera and species of fossils 
taken to represent the animals themselves. These parallel taxon- 
omies (some of which are much older than the first, 1905, Regies 
internationales de nomenclature zoologique) are set up to meet a 
practical need for communication, and they will continue to do so 
as long as the need exists. Article 24 could be used to destroy the 
nomenclatures in which these taxonomies are expressed by applying 
the Law of Priority case by case. In such groups as ammonite 
phragmocones and aptychi; nautiloid phragmocones and 
rhynchoUtes; fossil holothurian spiculea and extant holothurians; 
fossil and extant elasmobranch fishes; such use of Article 24 would 
not only produce chaos in both paranomenclature and "ortho- 
nomenclature" - it would also inhibit communication between 
workers on the parataxa in the only framework that makes practical 
sense for them, because there would no longer be a nomenclature 
in which they could express the only taxonomy that they could 
use. Thus the instrument set up to facilitate communication among 
zoologists would be put to a perverse and contrary use. 

'If the conodont workers do not need two taxonomies and 
two nomenclatures, nobody can compel them to use them. Workers 
in other groups have such needs.' 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 4 July 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)18 for or against the proposals set out in paragraphs 1-4, 
Section B. of the Commission's report to Section on Zoological 
Nomenclature as set out in Bull. zool. Norn. vol. 36, pp. 211-212. 
At the close of the voting period on 4 October, 1980 the state of 
the voting was as follows: 

Vote 1 

Affirmative votes — fifteen (15) received in the following 
order: Corliss, Halvorsen, Welch, Holthuis, Kraus, Mroczkowski, 
Vokes, Alvarado, Melville, Willink, Nye, Sabrosky, Starobogatov, 
Brinck, Ride 

Negative votes — three (3): Hahn, Binder, Tortonese 
Vote 2 

Affirmative votes - thirteen (13) received in the following 
order: Corliss, Halvorsen, Welch, Hahn, Kraus, Mroczkowski, 
Vokes, Alvarado, Melville, Willink, Sabrosky, Starobogatov, Brinck 

Negative votes — five (5): Holthuis, Nye, Ride, Binder, 
Tortonese 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 47 



Votes 3 and 4 

On 14th January 1981 I received a request from Mr. Heppell 
under Bylaw 27 to defer publication of the results of the votes on 
points 3 and 4 of V.P.(80)18 (point 4 had by that time been 
presented for a second vote under Bylaw 35) and V.P.(80)39. I 
accordingly took action as requested under Bylaw 24. Mr. Heppell 
said: 

'I seek the Secretary's approval under Bylaw 27 to defer publication of 
the decision taken by the Commission on points 3 and 4 of V.P.(1980)18 and 
of that taken on point 4 when re-submitted as V. P. (1980)3 9 on the grounds 
that the application presented was incorrect. This incorrect presentation of the 
proposals relating to parataxa may be established by comparison with those 
relating to ichnotaxa (V.P.( 1980)1 8, points 1 and 2). In the case of ichnotaxa 
these taxa had generally been regarded as equivalent to the work of an animal 
and, as such, their names were unavailable under the Code if published after 
1930. It was therefore necessary for the Code to be changed in two ways 
before the names of such trace fossils could adequately be regulated by it. 
First, to make it expUcit that trace fossils were to be treated for purposes 
of nomenclature as taxa and not as the work of an animal, so that their avail- 
ability was assured even if published after 1930. Second, in the special cir- 
cumstances of their taxonomy as trace fossils impinging on the taxonomy of 
body fossils, to ensure that neither the ichnotaxon nor the taxon would 
disappear into the synonymy of the other, regardless of the relative priority 
of the two names. As in the case of a collective group, the name of an ichno- 
taxon would remain available for use within the ichnotaxonomic system even 
if some of its components had been identified with "whole-animal" taxa. Point 
1 of the vote established the availability of ichnotaxa as a special kind of taxa. 
Point 2 established their "parataxonomic" nature in relation to "orthotaxa". It 
could be argued that point 2 was no more than a special application of the 
proposal embodied in point 4 but there is nothing intrinsically incorrect in its 
presentation. Although the form of words used in points 1 and 2 differs 
considerably from those used in this submission, my argument confirms that 
the underlying concept of each point is a separate though related substantive 
change in the existing Code. In the case of parataxa, however, the two under- 
lying concepts are conjunct and cannot logically be subject to separate (and 
possibly opposing) votes. As Nye has claimed in his comments, "ichnotaxa, 
parataxa and orthotaxa all merge". The Secretary, in an Appendix to 
V.P.(1980)18, indicated a number of parallel taxonomies recognised in various 
phyla. In any such case the taxa of each of the parallel taxonomies are para- 
taxa in relation to the other. As an example, if genera based on gastropod 
opercula cannot be related on a one-to-one basis to genera based on gastropod 
shells, not only are the opercula-genera parataxa in relation to the shell-taxa 
but the shell-genera are parataxa in relation to the opercula-taxa. Thus the 
concept of parataxa must be independent of any actual classification of 
assemblages of fossil fragments as no one system of taxonomy is necessarily 
more "artificial" than another. It seems to have been a failure to appreciate 
this, that has led to most of the argument against parataxa being recognised 
in the Code. It is thus evident that parataxa are not absolute but relative. 
Therefore, as all parataxa are taxa within their own taxonomic systems, the 



48 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1981 



Code already recognises them and no substantive change is either indicated or 
possible in this respect. But in order to avoid competition between taxonomies 
(in practice a very rare event but in theory, as made evident in the Secretary's 
Appendix, liable to cause nomenclatural instability of considerable magnitude) 
it is necessary for the Code to be emended so that a taxon and its corres- 
ponding parataxon do not compete for priority. As it has been demonstrated 
that there is no objective criterion for the recognition of a parataxon it can be 
stated that parataxa are taxa which exist in independent taxonomic systems 
and consequently do not mutually compete for priority. This assertion makes 
the necessity for such provision in the Code self-evident and demonstrates 
that the two aspects of parataxa embodied in the proposals of V.P.(1980)18 
are indivisible and that a separate vote on each point is not acceptable. 

'I do not object to the manner of presentation of the case to the lUBS 
General Assembly at Helsinki as the nature of parataxa had to be indicated in 
a way that would be readily understood. Also, it was not unreasonable to 
outline those areas in which parataxa are liable to be used, just as one might 
explain that the use of collective groups is normally confined to helminthology. 
In approaching the subject from a somewhat different direction, however, I 
hope I have been able to show that the relationship between taxa and parataxa 
is essentially philosophical and that their non-competition with each other for 
priority is implicit in the concept and thus is not susceptible to consideration 
as an independent issue'. 

DECLARATION OF RESULT OF VOTE 

I hereby declare that the votes cast on V.P.(80)18 were cast 
as set out above, and that proposals 1 and 2 contained in that 
voting paper have been duly adopted. The Commission will incor- 
porate the proposed amendments into the Code, in accordance with 
the authority given to it by the Division of Zoology of lUBS at 
Helsinki, in words to be prepared by the Editorial Committee for 
the Commission's approval. Publication of the results of the votes 
on proposals 3 and 4 has been deferred under Bylaw 24. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
26 January 1981 



Bull. zooL Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1981 49 



OPINION 1162 

SCHIZONEURA MEUNIERf HEIE, 1969 (INSECTA: 

HEMIPTERA): CONSERVED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name 
patchi Meunier, 1917, as published in the binomen Schizoneura 
patchi, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority 
but not for those of the Law of Homonymy . 

(2) The specific name meunieri Heie, 1969, as published in 
the binomen Schizoneura meunieri, as conserved through the ruhng 
given under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on 
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name 
Number 2720. 

(3) The specific name patchi Meunier, 1917, as pubUshed in 
the binomen Schizoneura patchi, and as suppressed under the 
plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name 
Number 1071. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1859 

An appUcation to resolve the confusion caused by the co- 
existence of the two binomina, Schizoneura patchiae Borner & 
Blunck, 1916, and S. patchi Meunier, 1917, was first received from 
Dr Ole E. Heie (Skive Seminarium, Skive, Denmark) on 28 August 
1968. After some correspondence an agreed version was sent to the 
printer on 22 November 1968 and published on 28 February 1969 
in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 25, pp. 222-223. Public notice of the 
possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the 
same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to 
seven entomological serials. 

Dr C.W. Sabrosky presented a different version of the case 
and proposed that S. patchi Meunier, 1917 be suppressed so as to 
conserve S. meunieri Heie, 1969, the replacement name proposed 
for it. His comment was published on 7 April 1970 in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 26, p. 183. In it he proposed the solution adopted by the 
Commission in the present Opinion. He also proposed an amend- 
ment to Article 58 of the Code, and this is at present under con- 
sideration for the Third Edition of the Code. Dr Heie accepted the 
correctness of Dr Sabrosky's presentation and asked that the 
Commission vote on those proposals. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 14 December 1979 the members of the Commission were 



50 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 



invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(79)20 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 
26, p. 183. At the close of the voting period on 14 March 1980, the 
state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes - nineteen (19) received in the following 
order: Melville, Willink, Vokes, Corliss, Tortonese, Alvarado, 
Brinck, Hahn, Habe, Welch, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, 
Kraus, Ride (in part), Halvorsen, Binder, Nye, Cogger 

Negative Votes - four (4): Holthuis, Bayer, Mroczkowski, 
Heppell 

Dupuis abstained from voting. No voting paper was returned 
by Bernardi. 

The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Holthuis: 'As the name Schizoneura patchi has only been 
used in the original pubHcation, the type of the species is lost, and 
its identity uncertain, I do not see that anything is gained by 
suppressing the name. It can hardly cause any confusion, the more 
so as it is junior to S. patchiae Borner & Blunck.' 

Mroczkowski: 'Both the original names (patchiae and patchi) 
are nomenclaturally distinct and valid. We must strictly observe the 
rules of the Code. If we allow the present application to create a 
precedent, thousands of similar applications will come to the 
Commission. In the same group of insects (aphids), in the tribe 
PHYLLAPHIDINI, there are two generic names Calaphis Walsh, 
1863 and Callaphis Walker, 1870. The coexistence of two such 
similar generic names in the same tribe is also unfortunate, but no 
appUcation has hitherto reached the Commission [such an appli- 
cation has indeed reached the Secretariat, but it is not yet fully 
prepared for publication. R.V.M.] . I have discussed this problem 
with Professor Szelegiewicz, our aphid specialist, and he supports 
my opinion.' 

Heppell: 'As nearly 10 years have elapsed since the original 
proposals, as modified by Sabrosky, were published, it seems un- 
fortunate that this case is now brought to the vote when provisions 
affecting the status of the name Schizoneura patchi are not only 
included in the Draft Third Edition of the Code but were accepted 
in a preliminary vote by those members of the Commission meeting 
at Lund and Helsinki in 1979. Under draft Article 3\, S. patchi 
Meunier, 1917, would be an incorrect original spelling of, and under 
draft Article 58 a junior primary homonym of, S. patchiae Borner 
& Blunck, 1916. The invalidity of S. patchi would follow and 
would not require suppression under the plenary powers. If this 
were my only objection I would not oppose the application but 
merely regret a decision being made while a significant provision 



Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 51 



affecting the case is sub judice. What I cannot support, however, 
is the proposal to validate meunieri for a taxon admitted to be 
unrecognised since its original description and for which the where- 
abouts of the type are unknown. It is bad enough for Heie to have 
published a replacement name in the first place, but for the 
Commission to contemplate adding it to the Official List is mani- 
festly fatuous.' 

Ride: 'S. patchi Meunier is known only from the type speci- 
men which has now disappeared. It has been mentioned only in 
the type description and the current application. Validating the 
name S. meunieri is unnecessary and may even create a taxonomic 
encumbrance. If Heie considers that the species is a good one he 
would do better to redescribe it with fresh material and thereby 
avoid having to go through the procedures required by Article 75. 
I do not support Sabrosky's proposal (b), validation oi S. meunieri.' 

Dupuis: "Abstention Ge n'ai pas les Bulletins 25 et 26) parce 
que je trouve singuUer que ce cas ait attendu si longtemps.' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references to names placed on 
an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the 
present Opinion: 
meunieri, Schizoneura, Heie, 1969, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 25, p. 

222 
patchi, Schizoneura, Meunier, 1917, Verh. k. Akad. Wet. 

Amsterdam, vol. 20, p. 7. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V. P. (79)20 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper 
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the 
decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1 162. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
18 April 1980 



52 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 



OPINION 1163 

CONUS MOLUCCENSIS (MOLLUSCA: GASTROPODA) 

IS AVAILABLE AS FROM THE WORK OF KUSTER, 1838 

RULING.- (1) The request to use the plenary powers to 
declare the specific name moluccensis, as published in the bino- 
men Conus moluccensis, available from the work of Dillwyn, 1817, 
is refused. 

(2) The specific name moluccensis Klister, 1838, as pub- 
lished in the binomen Conus moluccensis, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
2721. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2059 

A request for a ruling on whether the name Conus 
moluccensis was made available by Dillwyn, 1817, was first 
received from Dr W.O. Cemohorsky {Auckland Institute and 
Museum, New Zealand) on 19 December 1973. After an exchange 
of correspondence, a formal appHcation was received on 14 January 
1974, sent to the printer on 14 April 1974, and published on 20 
September 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 156-158. Public 
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was 
given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory 
serials and to two malacological serials. 

Dr Cemohorsky asked the Commission to vote for one of 
two alternatives: either (A) for the use of the plenary powers to 
suppress C moluccensis Dillwyn, 1817 and place C moluccensis 
Kiister, 1 838 on the Official List; or (B) to rule that C. moluccensis 
was made available by Dillwyn, 1817, and to so place it on the 
Official List. Dr Harald Rehder(l7.5. National Museum, Washington, 
D.C.) held that the name was not made available by Dillwyn and 
accordingly supported Alternative A. Dr A.J. Kohn (University of 
Washington, Seattle) supported Alternative B. No other comments 
were received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 14 December 1979 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1979) 
22, in Part 1 for or against the use of the plenary powers in the 
present case, and in Part 2 for or against using those powers to 
declare Conus moluccensis available as from the work of Dillwyn, 
1817. The following note accompanied the voting paper. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 53 

NOTE TO ACCOMPANY V.P.(79)22 

was no,' available whe M ^ ? 4;-''" 'His'r.'""'"^?""" 

eillliliiMilii 

Paper i^°ParM V^'''^°'' ^"^^^"^ ^° "^^^ °" the attached Voting 
present case and in PartTe^n'' ^ '' ^'^ P^^"^^^ P°-^- - t^f 

L/.cceLT'.Tvlila^:;?f;om%Tllwv; '""l' ^^^"^ 

tz^am^r in Part 1 will be consMered to hJ . i' ^^°'^ who voted 
and for attributing cZTucct^' To Ste^lssTTtvio th"7 
majority of those voting for in Part I will hJ^ . two-thirds 
affirmative answer in Part 2 ^' "''"^'"^ ^° ^^^^ ^n 

prejudirtoTh^gt^rZ^L^^^^^ ^"^T^ "^" '^ ^^^-^ 

unavailable name c^rbe Sp " . . k? ^^^^^tions under which an 

At the cTose of th. l.. ^^^^^^^le by a subsequent author.' 

of the voting wiTas follows''^"' P""'°" ^'^^^^^^ 1980 the state 



54 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt I , February 1 98 1 



Part I 

Affirmative Votes - six (6) received in the following order: 
Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Habe, Dupuis, Nye, Heppell 

Negative Votes ~ eighteen (18) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Bayer, Willink, Vokes, Corhss, Tortonese, 
Trjapitzin, Alvarado, Brinck, Habe, Welch, Starobogatov, Kraus, 
Ride, Binder, Halvorsen, Cogger 

Part 2 

Affirmative Votes - five (5) received in the following order: 
Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Dupuis, Nye, Heppell 

Negative Vote — Habe 

No voting paper was returned by Bernardi. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their votes: 

Mroczkowski: 'It is clear to me that the citation of Chemnitz's 
figures in Dillwyn's work is a correct indication under Article 1 6a(i). 
Thus Dillwyn made the name Conus moluccensis available and is its 
author.' 

Trjapitzin : 'I vote for attributing the name Conus moluccensis 
to Kiister, 1838 and agree with Dr Rehder and the note by the 
Secretary.' 

Sabrosky: 'Dillwyn's index shows that Conus moluccensis 
was a name cited in synonymy, and under Article lid it might 
have been made available from Dillwyn if the name had been 
adopted by some later author. Kohn did not know of such use but 
pointed out that it might have happened (Kiister's moluccensis 
was apparently a separate proposal). I agree with Kohn that recog- 
nising the name from Dillwyn, 1 8 1 7, is the safest course.' 

Ride: 'I hold that the vote should be taken again under the 
One-Month Rule. The only way that the Commission could vahdate 
the name from Dillwyn is by setting aside the provisions of Article 
1 . That action would be necessary before a name not applied by its 
author to a taxonomic unit of animals could be admitted into 
zoological nomenclature. [The only exceptions are names proposed 
before 1961 for "conditional" application (implicit in Article 15) 
and names subsequently made available from earlier pubHcation in 
synonymy through Article lid]. The question as to whether 
Chemnitz recognised the taxon is irrelevant, and Dillwyn does not 
publish the name in synonymy. 

'A new vote must be called for procedural reasons also. The 
second vote cannot be restricted to those who vote for the use of 
the plenary powers. I vote both against the use of the plenary 
powers (as being unnecessary) and against the introduction of the 
name from Dillwyn (for the reasons given).' [In view of the clear 
cut nature of the Commission's decision, it seems that no useful 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 55 



purpose would be served by reopening the case. R.V.M.] 

Heppell: 'Cemohorsky asked the Commission to rule on the 
availability of Conus moluccensis Dillwyn, 1817. If it were ruled to 
be not available under the Code (i.e. without the use of the plenary 
powers) the date and authorship would fall to Kuster, 1838. If it 
were considered available from Dillwyn, the Commission was asked 
to make that opinion expUcit, or to suppress that usage in favour of 
Kuster's. If these alternative proposals had been brought to the 
vote, my opinion would have been that C. moluccensis was available 
as of Dillwyn, 1817, and that there was no reason to suppress that 
usage as there was no threat therefrom to stability of nomenclature. 
Thus I would have voted for Alternative B, and for much the same 
reasons as Kohn in his comment — i.e. if Dillwyn's name is not 
available by his exact reference to the Chemnitz figures, then nor 
are a great many, Roding, 1798, names proposed in exactly the 
same way and in daily use. I wish Rehder had indicated which were 
"the several names in Dillwyn that would be vaUdated if these 
names are ruled available"; after an extensive search through the 
two volumes I could not find a single example. 

'As the Secretary took an opposite view to the applicant 
(who had regarded the Dillwyn usage as "probably available") in his 
note accompanying the voting paper, the choice of Alternative B 
has been pre-empted and Dillwyn must be deemed by use of the 
plenary powers to have made the name available. Then so be it. My 
interpretation of Dillwyn's intentions is as follows. Conus 
moluccensis was (and is) a rare species, known to Dillwyn only 
through Chemnitz's figures and description. Most of Chemnitz's 
names had been made available (and reduced to binominal names) 
by Gmelin, 1791, or Roding, 1798, but volume 11 of the 
Conchylien-Cabinet had come out too late (1 795) to be noticed by 
either of those authors. Consequently Dillwyn was one of the first 
to catalogue the new species described in that volume. It is mis- 
leading of the Secretary to state that the specific name moluccensis 
was not available when Dillwyn received it, as it was no less 
available then than when Kuster received it in 1 838 (unless Dillwyn 
had already made it available before him). Kuster attributed the 
name to Chemnitz, as did Kiener, 1846, SpSc. Gin. Coq. FzV., vol. 
2, p. 49) and many subsequent authors who were not to know that 
this universally used work (with its specific names usually con- 
ventionally binominahsed) would be ruled unavailable in 1 944. As 
stated by Cemohorsky, Dillwyn did not publish the name in the 
synonymy of C. augur. Not being sure where to place them, he 
mentioned the two species C. pertusus and C. moluccensis between 
C augur and the next species (a) because [Hwass in] Bruguiere 
described C. pertusus following C augur, and (b) because he sus- 



56 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 



pected (incorrectly) that both might be based on artifically 
doctored shells. He might have doubted their validity but he 
certainly regarded them as available names (not synonyms) and in 
the case of C. moluccensis conferred availability on them by giving 
a bibhographic reference to the description and figures of Chemnitz 
(an "indication" for a specific name according to Article 16a(i)).' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCE 

The following is the original reference to a name placed on 

the Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

moluccensis, Conus, Kiister, 1838, Syst. Conch. -Cabinet von 

Martini und Chemnitz. Familie der Coneae oder Conidae, ed 

2, vol. 4 (2), pp. 121, 181, pi. 23, figs. 4, 5. Nuremberg. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)22 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposal for the use of the plenary powers 
contained in that voting paper has been duly rejected, and that the 
decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1 163. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
21 April 1980 



Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1981 57 



OPINION 1164 

REFUSAL OF REQUEST TO SUPPRESS CALOMICRUS 

TAENIA TUS WOLLASTON, 1 867 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA) 

RULING.- (1) The request that the plenary powers be used 
to suppress the specific name taeniatus Wollaston, 1867, as 
pubUshed in the binomen Calomicrus taeniatus, is hereby refused. 

(2) The specific name taeniatus Wollaston, 1867, as pub- 
lished in the binomen Calomicrus taeniatus, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
2722. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2012 

A request for the suppression of Calomicrus taeniatus 
Wollaston, 1867 was first received from Dr Hans Silfverberg {Zoo- 
logical Museum, University of Helsinki, Finland) on 13 July 1972. 
After some correspondence with Dr Silfverberg, the application was 
sent to the printer on 27 August 1974 and published on 31 
December 1974 in Bull, zool Nom. vol. 31, pp. 216-217. Public 
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was 
given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory 
serials and to seven entomological journals. No comment was 
received. 

FIRST VOTE OF THE COMMISSION 

On 22 September 1976 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1976)20 for or against the proposals pubhshed in Bull. zool. Nom. 
vol. 31, pp. 216-217. At the close of the voting period on 22 
December 1 976 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — thirteen (13) received in the following 
order: Melville, Eisenmann, Vokes, Willink, Lemche, Tortonese, 
Ride, Brinck, Bayer, Binder, Corliss, Starobogatov, Welch 

Negative Votes — nine (9) received in the following order: 
Mroczkowski, Holthuis, Rohdendorf, Habe, Sabrosky, Dupuis, 
Nye, Kraus, Bemardi 

Alvarado returned a late affirmative vote. No voting paper 
was returned by Heppell. 

The following comments were returned by members of 
the Commission with their voting papers: 

Eisenmann: 'My affirmative vote is subject to the modifi- 
cation suggested below. Considering the vast distance separating 
the type locahty of Calomicrus taeniatus (Cape Verde Islands in 



58 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 



the Atlantic) from that of Luperus quaternus (Madagascar, Indian 
Ocean) I wonder whether it would not be better simply to give 
precedence to quaternus for zoologists considering the names 
synonymous, thus preserving taeniatus if ever the Cape Verde 
population were given subspecific rank.' 

Mroczkowski: 'As Calomicrus taeniatus Wollaston, 1867 
and Luperus quaternus Fairmaire, 1880 are subjective synonyms, 
both should remain nomenclaturally available. C. taeniatus should 
not be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific 
Names in Zoology.' 

Rohdendorf: 'I vote agamst Dr Silfverberg's proposal because 
C. taeniatus is not a forgotten name. It was mentioned in catalogues 
in 1924 and 1973. This is a typical case for the application of the 
Law of Priority.' 

Sabrosky: 'I find it odd that the name quaternus is said to be 
used in "many works ... of appUed entomology" but that the 
insect, on the other hand, is only "potentially" noxious.' 

Dupuis: 'Quelle serait la situation si Ton constatait que les 
deux noms concement en fait des sous-especes differentes? L'espece 
n'etant que "potentially" nuisible il n'y a aucun inconvenient a 
respecter pour I'instant la priorite.' 

Nye: 'I would be willing to vote in favour of a ruHng that L. 
quaternus should be given nomenclatural precedence over C. 
taeniatus by anyone who treats them as referring to the same taxon. 
That is nomenclature. I am not, however, wilhng to endorse a 
subjective synonymy and permanently suppress a name when no 
lectotype has been selected for the species concerned from the 
"long series of syntypes" from the Cape Verde Islands. It is quite 
possible that a scientist other than the applicant may wish to treat 
them as subspecifically separable from the Madagascar population.' 

Kraus: 'I vote against the proposal: the apphcant did not 
offer information detailed enough to explain the potential diffi- 
culties that would result from the adoption of the senior synonym.' 

Bernardi: 'Puisqu'il s'agit simplement d'une espece "poten- 
tially noxious" il faut mieux la de'signer par son nom correct, 
choisir un lectotype de Calomicrus taeniatus, et placer Luperus 
quaternus en synonymie. Ainsi si cette espfece devient vraiment 
nuisible un jour sa nomenclature sera deja eclaircie et stabilisee, et 
il n'y aura pas lieu de s'adresser^ la Commission.' 

SECOND VOTE AND DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

Since the proposals in V.P.(76)20 had been adopted by a 
majority smaller than a two-thirds majority, it was necessary under 
Bylaw 35 to call for a second vote, accompanied by a report on the 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 59 



first vote and a statement of the alternative nomenclatural conse- 
quences of acceptance or rejection of the request for the use of the 
plenary powers. I therefore reported the result of the vote on 
V.P.(76)20 and the comments reproduced above, and added: 

Taking the above comments into account, it seems to me 
that the Commission ought, in reconsidering its vote, to choose, 
first, whether or not to use its plenary powers in the case. This 
question can be decided by a simple majority vote; and if there is 
not such a majority for the use of the plenary powers, then the Law 
of Priority will apply. In that event, I should write a Ruling placing 
Calomicrus taeniatus Wollaston, 1867, on the Official List without 
mentioning Z.wpem5 quaternus Fairmaire, 1880. 

'If there is a majority for the use of the plenary powers, then 
the Commission ought to choose whether to use those powers to 
suppress the senior synonym Calomicrus taeniatus (the original 
proposal), or to give the junior synonym (Luperus quaternus) 
nomenclatural precedence for all zoologists who regard the two 
specific names as synonymous. A two-thirds majority of the votes 
vahdly cast will be required for the adoption of either alternative. 

'If the first alternative is adopted, taeniatus will be 
suppressed and quaternus will be placed on the Official List. If 
the second alternative is adopted, both names will be placed on 
the Official List — quaternus with an endorsement that it is to be 
given precedence over taeniatus by those zoologists who consider 
both names to be synonymous; and taeniatus with an endorsement 
that it is not to be given priority over quaternus by those zoo- 
logists who consider both names to be synonymous. 

'The proposed steps are set out on the attached Voting Paper 
V.P.(77)12.' 

In V.P.(77)12, issued on 1 July 1977 under the Three-Month 
Rule, the members of the Commission were accordingly invited, in 
Part 1 , to vote for or against the use of the plenary powers in the 
present case; and in Part 2 to vote either for Alternative A (the 
suppression of Calomicrus taeniatus Wollaston, 1867, for the 
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of 
Homonymy), or for Alternative B (the grant of nomenclatural 
precedence to Luperus quaternus over Calomicrus taeniatus). At 
the close of the voting period on 1 October 1977, the state of the 
voting was as follows: 

Part 1 

Affirmative Votes — ten (10) received in the following order: 
Melville, Eisenmann, Mroczkowski, Holthuis, Nye, Rohdendorf, 
Binder, Corliss, Welch, Bayer 

Negative Votes — ten (10) received in the following order: 
Dupuis, Vokes, Wilhnk, Heppell, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Cogger, 



60 Bull, zooi Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 

Habe, Ride, Kraus 

Part 2 
Alternative A 

Affirmative Votes — none (0) 

Alternative B 

Affirmative Votes — thirteen (13) received in the following 
order: Melville, Dupuis, Eisenmann, Mroczkowski, Holthuis, Nye, 
Rohdendorf, Binder, Corliss, Welch, Cogger, Habe, Bayer; plus four 
(4) conditional votes: Vokes, Willink, Ride, Kraus 

Alvarado sent in a late affirmative vote for the use of the 
plenary powers and for Alternative A in Part 2. No voting papers 
were returned by Bemardi, Lemche and Tortonese. 

Dr Cogger observed: 'Not having been involved in the first 
vote, I believe that the original proposal of Silfverberg did not make 
a convincing case for the use of the plenary powers and thus the 
Law of Priority should apply. Given the distance between the type 
locaUties of the two species and the existence of the original type 
material of both taxa it would, in my view, be inappropriate to 
suppress the name Calomicnis taeniatus Wollaston.' 

As there was no majority for the use of the plenary powers in 
the second vote; as each of the alternatives offered in the second 
part of the Voting Paper called for the use of those powers; and as 
Bylaw 36 requires a two-thirds majority for a favourable vote, it is 
clear that neither of the said alternatives has been adopted. As a 
result, the original proposal is lost and the Law of Priority applies. 

ORIGINAL REFERENCE 

The following is the original reference to a name placed on an 
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
taeniatus, Calomicnis, Wollaston, 1867, Coleoptera Hesperidum, 
being an enumeration of the coleopterous insects of the Cape 
Verde archipelago, London (van Voorst), p. 145. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Papers (76)20 
and (77)12 were cast as set out above, that the request for the use 
of the plenary powers in the present case has been refused, and 
that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1 164. 

R.V. MELVILLE, Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London. 19 Aug. 1980 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 61 



OPINION 1165 

SCYTALE NIGER DAUDIN, 1803 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES) 

SUPPRESSED 

RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name 
niger Daudin, 1803, as published in the binomen Scytale niger, and 
all uses of that name prior to the pubUcation oi Scytale neuwiedii, 
var. nigrum Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1 854, is hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homo- 
nymy. 

(2) The specific name niger Daudin, 1803, as published in 
the binomen Scytale niger, and all uses of that name prior to the 
pubUcation of Scytale neuwiedii var. nigrum Dumeril, Bibron & 
Dumeril, 1854, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected 
and InvaUd Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
1072. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2077 

An application for the suppression of Scytale niger Daudin, 
1803, was first received from Mr. Andrew Stimson (British 
Museum, Natural History) on 1 December 1971 . After an exchange 
of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 27 August 1 974 and 
published on 31 December 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 
247-248. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in 
the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials and to two herpetological serials. The application 
was supported by Professor Hobart Smith (University of Colorado). 
No adverse comment was received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 14 December 1979 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1979)21 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. 
vol. 3 1 , pp. 247-248. At the close of the voting period on 14 March 
1980 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes - twenty (20) received in the following 
order: Melville, Mroczkowski, Willink, Vokes, Coriiss, Tortonese, 
Trjapitzin, Alvarado, Habe, Brinck, Hahn, Welch, Starobogatov, 
Sabrosky, Kraus, Ride, Halvorsen, Binder, Nye, Cogger 

Negative votes - four (4): Holthuis, Bayer, Heppell, Dupuis 

No voting paper was returned by Bemardi. 

The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 



62 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 



Holthuis: 'I vote against this proposal for two reasons: 

'1. Evidently the name Pseudoboa nigra is not a commonly 
used name: in paragraph 2 of the application it is stated that the 
name has been used only three times since 1964. A strict appli- 
cation of priority would not do much harm, if any, here. 

'2. As the proposal is now worded, its acceptance would 
not save the name nigrum Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril. Suppression 
of Scytale niger Daudin, 1 803 for the purposes of both priority and 
homonymy would make Scytale niger Harlan, 1827 (mentioned in 
paragraph 4 of the appUcation) an available name, which in its turn 
invaUdates nigrum D. B. & D. This could be corrected by adding in 
the first Une of the proposal on p. 248 "and all uses of the name 
Scytale nigra before the publication of Scytale neuwiediivsLT. nigrum 
Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854".' [This point has been taken 
into account in drafting the present ruUng. R.V.M.] 

Bayer: 'If the name niger Daudin, 1803 is suppressed for 
both priority and homonymy as proposed, Harlan's 1827 usage of 
Scytale niger becomes a senior homonym of S. neuwiedii var. 
nigrum Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1 854.' 

Heppell: 'I vote against the proposals, as to vote for would be 
to acquiesce in the presumption that Scytale neuwiedii var. nigrum 
is a junior primary homonym of S. niger. As a result of an 
ill-conceived modification to Article 45e, the post-Monaco Code 
treats all named varieties as nomenclaturally equivalent to 
subspecies, and the present case is an excellent example of the 
chaos consequent to that injudicious decision. I have argued at 
length elsewhere against condoning that ruUng in the new edition of 
the Code, and as my submission was supported by the preliminary 
vote of the Commissioners meeting at Lund, I do not intend to 
rehearse it again here. It is apparent from Bailey's presentation of 
the Lystrophis case (1962, Bull. zool. Norn., vol. 19, pp. 164-169) 
that S. neuwiedii var. nigrum was originally conceived as of infra- 
subspecific rank. Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril themselves, in the 
same work in which they described that form, recognised Scytale 
niger Daudin (as Heterodon niger) as an available name for another 
taxon. Pseudoboa nigra, as a taxon of the species group, should 
have been attributed to Bailey, 1962, this being the authorship and 
date of its elevation (Article 10b). Nevertheless, it has been 
common practice for an author raising a varietal name to maintain 
its original authorship and date. Although the Commission adopted 
Bailey's traditional attribution of the varietal name to Dumeril, 
Bibron & Dumeril, 1 854 when the name was placed on the Official 
List, it does not follow, in the absence of any exphcit statement 
published with Opinion 698 (1964, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 21, pp. 
101-103) that any inference as to its subspecific status in 1854 can 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 63 



be drawn therefrom. Accordingly I do not acknowledge that 
Scytale niger is a threat to the established use of Pseudoboa nigra.' 
[Articles 45d(i) and 45e(i) of the London (1961) Code taken to- 
gether make names such as Scytale neuwiedii var. nigrum of sub- 
specific rank. The Monaco amendment did not modify this rule; it 
merely stated it in more explicit terms. R.V.M.] 

Dupuis: '(1) Scytale niger Daudin, 1803, t.5, p. 342, est 
nomenclatoriquement valide aux termes des regies actuelles. (2) 
Je remarque que c'est ce nom prioritaire, propose comme celui 
d'une espece, que Ton voudrait supprimer au profit d'un nom 
ulterieur, propose comme celui d'une variete. (3) Taxinomiquement, 
il y aura peut-etre besoin un jour de disposer du nom niger Daudin 
pour la variete (ou sous-espece) melanique de platirhinos. (4) La 
requete ne precise pas le degre de confiance a accorder taxinomi- 
quement k la synonymie cacodaemon Shaw, 1802 = niger Daudin, 
1803. Pour ces quatre raisons, je vote contre. 

'J'ajoute, a titre documentaire, que Heterodon platirhinos 
n.g., n.sp. n'est pas de Latreille, mais de Palisot de Beauvois, dans 
un "Memoire sur les serpens" signe et insere dans Sonnini & 
Latreille, tome 3, 1801, pp. 63-92. On y trouve le nom de genre, 
p. 66, et le nom d'espece dans le "Tableau comparatif . . . des 
dents", face p. 88. Daudin, dans son tome 5, pp. 47-73, a reproduit 
le memoire et le tableau de PaHsot.' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCE 

The following is the original reference for a name placed on 
an Official Index by the ruHng given in the present Opinion: 
niger, Scytale, Daudin, 1803, Histoire naturelle, generale et parti- 

culiere des reptiles, (Paris) p. 342. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V. P. (79)21 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper 
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the 
decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1 165. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
26 August 1980 



64 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 



OPINION 1166 

LIPARTHRUM WOLLASTON, 1 854 (COLEOPTERA, 

SCOLYTIDAE) CONSERVED 

RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled 
that Liparthrum is the correct original spelling of the generic name 
Leiparthrum Wollaston, 1854. 

(2) The generic name Liparthnim Wollaston, 1854 (gender: 
neuter), type species, by original designation, Liparthrum (correc- 
tion of Leiparthrum) bituberculatum Wollaston, 1854, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 2 1 09. 

(3) The specific name bituberculatum Wollaston, 1854, as 
published in the binomen Liparthrum (correction of Leiparthrum) 
bituberculatum (specific name of type species of Liparthrum 
Wollaston, 1854), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2723. 

(4) The generic name Leiparthrum Wollaston, 1854 (an 
incorrect original spelling through the ruling under the plenary 
powers in (1) above oi Liparthrum) is hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 2115. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2071 

An application for the conservation of the generic name 
Liparthrum Wollaston, 1854, was first received from Professor 
Stephen L. Wood (Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, U.S.A.) 
on 13 May 1974. It was then sent to the printer on 27 August 1974 
and published on 31 December 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, 
pp. 234-235. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as 
well as to the statutory journals and to eight entomological serials. 

The apphcation was supported by Prof. Anton Pfeffer 
(Prague) and by Dr. J.J. Menier (Paris) and, though with some 
reservations, by Prof. Dr. Schedl (University of Linz, Austria) and 
Dr. D.E. Bright (Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada 
(Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 135). It was opposed by Dr R.K. 
Brooke (Durban Museum, RSA) (ibid.) because 'no compelhng 
reason other than the weight of erroneous usage has been offered in 
support of the proposed conservation. It is not the purpose of the 
plenary powers to canonise by subsequent edict errors for which 
wide support can be cited when the inconvenience caused by 
application of the provisions of the Code is minimal'. 

Professor Wood replied in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, p. 4 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 65 



(26 June 1976) with revised proposals, and it was on these that the 
Commission has now voted. No comment was received on them. 

DHCISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 14 December 1979 the members of the Commission 
were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(79)23 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Norn. vol. 
33, p. 4. At the close of the voting period on 14 March 1980 the 
state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes - eighteen ( 1 8) received in the following 
order : Melville, Holthuis, Bayer, Mroczkowski, Willink, Vokes, 
Corliss, Tortonese, Alvarado (a conditional vote), Brinck, Hahn, 
Habe, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Ride, Nye, Binder, Halvorsen 

Negative Votes — five (5): Heppell, Welch, Sabrosky, Kraus, 
Cogger 

Abstention — Dupuis 

No voting paper was returned by Bernardi. 

The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Welch: 'The change in spelling of Leiparthrum Wollaston, 
1854, to Liparthnim Wollaston, 1864 is not a question of priority 
in my opinion, but a case of an "incorrect subsequent spelling" 
[Art. 33b] . As Wollaston gave no reason for the change in spelling 
one can only assume, using Occam's razor, that it was a lapsus 
calami which was subsequently repeated by other authors. To 
cite transliteration from Greek to Latin as the cause is an assump- 
tion. To argue that there are 1 50 citations in which Liparthnim was 
used still does not correct an error. The error in spelling can be 
cited in the synonymy of the genus and thus noted in the literature.' 

Sabrosky: T share Bright's reservations and agree with 
Brooke. In addition, I object to the amended proposal: we should 
not declare Liparthrum the correct original spelling, but a valid 
emendation.' 

Kraus: 'I totally agree with the reservations expressed by 
Brooke, as the name in question does not have any importance in a 
more geneial sense. Therefore I can see no objection to the appli- 
cation of the relevant automatic provisions of the Code.' 

Cogger: 'I concur fully with the comments of R.K. Brooke.' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for the names placed 
on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the 
present Opinion: 



66 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1, February 1981 



bituberculatum, Leiparthnim, Wollaston, 1854, Insecta Maderensia, 

being an account of the insects of the islands of the Madeiran 

group, p. 294 
Leiparthnim Wollaston, \85A, Insecta Maderensia, being an account 

of the insects of the islands of the Madeiran group, p. 294 
Liparthrum Wollaston, 1864, Catalogue of the coleopterous insects 

of the Canaries in the collection of the British Museum, p. 

265. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V. P. (79)23 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper 
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the 
decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1 166. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
2 September 1980 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1981 67 



OPINION 1167 

PHLOEOSINUS CHAPUIS, 1 869 (COLEOPTERA, 

SCOLYTIDAE) CONSERVED 

RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name 
Olonthogaster Motschulsky, 1866, is hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The generic name Phloeosinus Chapuis, 1869 (gender: 
masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Hopkins, 
1914, Hylesinus thujae Perns, 1855, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2110. 

(3) The specific name thujae Perris, 1855, as published in 
the binomen Hylesinus thujae (specific name of type species of 
Phloeosinus Chapuis, 1869) is hereby placed on the Official List 
of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2724. 

(4) The generic name Olonthogaster Motschulsky, 1866, 
as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Generic Names 
in Zoology with the Name Number 2116. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2072 

An application for the conservation of Phloeosinus Chapuis, 
1869 was first received from Professor Stephen L. Wood (Brigham 
Young University, Provo, Utah, U.S.A.) on 13 May 1974. It was 
sent to the printer on 27 August 1974 and published on 31 
December 1974 in Bull. zool. Norn. vol. 31, pp. 236-237. Public 
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was 
given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory 
serials and to eight entomological serials. Support was expressed by 
Professor Schedl {University of Linz, Austria), Professor Anton 
Pfeffer {Prague), Dr J.J. Mercier {Paris), and Dr D.E. Bright {Bio- 
systematics Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada). No hostile 
comment was received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 14 December 1979 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1979)24 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. 
vol. 3 1 , p. 236. At the close of the voting period on 1 4 March 1 980 
the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the 
following order: Melville, Holthuis, Bayer, Mroczkowski, Willink, 



68 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1981 



Yokes, Corliss, Tortonese, Trjapitzin, Alvarado, Brinck, Hahn, 
Habe, Welch, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Kraus, Ride, Dupuis, Binder, 
Halvorsen, Cogger 

Negative Votes — Heppell, Nye 

No voting paper was returned by Bemardi. 

The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Hahn : 'I would have preferred to use the "relative precedence" 
procedure to give Phloeosinus precedence over Olonthogaster 
whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms.' 

Nye: 'Although I support the conservation oi Phloeosinus, I 
must vote against the proposal for the unconditional suppression of 
a subjective synonym. Whether or not the two genera are taxono- 
mically congeneric is a matter of opinion which I cannot assess. The 
apphcant would have had my full support if he had asked for prece- 
dence to be given to Phloeosinus whenever considered to be a 
synonym of Olonthogaster.'' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the 
present Opinion: 
Olonthogaster Motschulsky, \S66, Bull. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou, vol. 

39, p. 401 
Phloeosinus Chapuis, 1869, Synopsis des Scoly tides (Paris), p. 37; 

Mem. Soc. roy. Sci. Liege, ser. 2, vol. 3, p. 245 
thujae, Hylesinus, Perris, 1855, ^««. Soc. entomol. Prance, ser. 3, 

vol. 3, pp. Ixxvii-lxxviii. 

The following is the original reference for a type-species 
fixation accepted in the present ruling: of Hylesinus thujae Perris, 
1855 for Phloeosinus Chapuis, 1869 by Hopkins, 1914, Proc. U.S. 
nat. Mus. vol. 48, pp. 1 15-136. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)24 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper 
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the deci- 
sion so taken, being the decision of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present 
Opinion No. 1 167. 

R.V. MELVILLE, Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London. 2 Sept. 1980 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 69 



OPINION 1168 

CACATUA DUCORPSII FUCHERAN, 1853 (AVES) 

CONSERVED 

RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name 
ducrops Bonaparte, 1850, as pubhshed in the binomen 
Plyctolophus DuCrops [sic] is hereby suppressed for the purposes 
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonym. 

(2) The specific name ducorpsii Pucheran, 1853, as pub- 
lished in the binomen Cacatua ducorpsii in Jacquinot & Pucheran, 
1853, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2725. 

(3) The specific name ducrops Bonaparte, 1850, as pub- 
lished in the binomen Plyctolophus DuCrops [sic] , and as 
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed 
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Specific Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 1073. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2074) 

An application for the conservation of the spelling ducorpsii 
for the specific name of Ducorps' Cockatoo, generally known as 
Cacatua ducorpsii, was first received from Dr E. Eisenmann 
{American Museum of Natural History, New York) and Dr J.M. 
Forshaw (CSIRO Division of Wildlife Research, Canberra, Australia) 
on 6 June 1974. It was sent to the printer on 27 August 1974 and 
pubhshed on 31 December 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 
240-243. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in 
the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials and to two ornithological serials. No comment was 
received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 14 December 1979 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1979)26 for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 
3 1 , p. 243. At the close of the voting period on 1 4 March 1 980 the 
state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the 
following order: Melville, Holthuis, Bayer, Mroczkowski, Willink, 
Vokes, Corliss, Tortonese, Trjapitzin, Alvarado, Habe, Brinck, 
Hahn, Heppell, Welch, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Kraus, Ride, 
Binder, Nye, Halvorsen 

Negative Votes — Dupuis, Cogger 



70 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 



No voting paper was returned by Bemardi. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Bayer: 'Although I am in favour of this proposal, I think it 
would have been better to request a ruling that Plyctolophus 
DuCrops was an incorrect original spelling which should be 
corrected to ducorpsii (or even ducorps), thus maintaining the 
authorship and date employed in Forshaw's monograph.' 

Welch: 'While I have voted for the proposal, I question the 
second section. Attention should be drawn to Recommendation 
31 A. It seems to me that the proper spelling of the specific epithet 
would be Cacatua ducorpsi. Eisenmann's reference {Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 31, p. 243) to a homonym under Article 58(10) appears 
unnecessary to me. Only one taxon is involved, which 
unfortunately has had its specific epithet spelled incorrectly in 
several ways and at several times.' 

Dupuis: 'Je propose, en vertu des pleins pouvoirs: ducorpsi 
Bonaparte, 1850, ex Hombron & Jacquinot, pour conserver une 
trace de I'histoire.' 

Cogger: 'I do not see any need for the exercise of the plenary 
powers in this case. Plyctolophus DuCrops of Bonaparte, 1850, is 
clearly a valid name, except that, as suggested by the proponents 
(Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, p. 241) there is clear evidence of an inad- 
vertent error in the original publication by virtue of such evidence 
being present in the "indication". Consequently the valid specific 
name for Ducorps' Cockatoo is ducorps, as published in the bino- 
men Plyctolophus ducorps Bonaparte, 1 850.' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCE 

The following are the original references for names placed 
on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruhng given in the 
present Opinion: 
ducorpsii, Cacatua Pucheran, 1853, in Jacquinot & Pucheran, 

Voyage au Pdle sud, Zoologie, vol. 3, p. 1 08. 
DuCrops, Plyctolophus, Bonaparte, 1850, C.r. Acad. Sci. Paris, vol. 

30, p. 138. 



Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 71 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Pan^r riQ^-iA 

the decision so taLn T,n„ tvT ^ ^'^"^'^ P^^^'"^' an 

R.V. MELVILLE 

International Commission on Zoological NomfndaZl 

London 
3 September 1980 



72 Bull. zooL Nom., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 



OPINION 1169 

CA TAPHRACTUS PUNCTA TUS BLOCH, 1 794 (PISCES): 

LECTOTYPE DESIGNATION APPROVED 

RULING.— (1) The neotype designation for Cataphractus 
punctatus Bloch, 1794 made by Nijssen and Isbrucker, 1967, ZooZ. 
Meded. Leiden, vol. 42, pp. 28-30, is hereby set aside. 

(2) The specific name punctatus Bloch, 1 794, as pubhshed 
in the binomen Cataphractus punctatus, and as interpreted by 
reference to the lectotype designated by Nijssen & Isbrucker, 1975, 
Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 63 (Humboldt Museum, Berlin, 
No. ZMB 3149), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2726. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1950 

An appUcation from Dr H. Nijssen and Dr I.J.H. Isbrucker 
(Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam) for the replacement by a lecto- 
type of the neotype that they had previously designated for 
Cataphractus punctatus Bloch, 1794, was first received on 
7 December 1970. After some correspondence with the apphcants, 
it was sent to the printer on 19 November 1974 and published on 
27 March 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 63-64. No use of 
the plenary powers was involved. 

An objection by Professor Ernst Mayr was answered by the 
Secretary (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 198). No other comment was 
received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 9 April 1 980 the members of the Commission were in- 
vited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1980)3 
for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 63. 
At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1 980 the state of the 
voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the follow- 
ing order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, 
Willink, Mroczkowski, Bayer, Hahn, Kraus, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, 
Habe, Halvorsen, Nye, Alvarado, Binder, Cogger, Welch, Tortonese 

Negative Votes — none (0) 

Abstentions: Heppell, Dupuis 

No voting papers were returned by Ride and Bernardi. 

Mr Heppell commented: T abstain. I have no way of judging 
which specimen would be the better standard of reference for this 
nominal species.' 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 73 



Professor Dupuis commented: 'Malgre mon souhait de 
supprimer un neotype inutile, je considere que nous n'avons pas 
encore la preuve - a la date du Bulletin vol. 35(4), 3 1 May 1979 - 
alors que Karrer "is recataloguing the collections of Bloch", de 
I'authenticite' des specimens retrouves. Je m'abstiens jusqu'a 
publication du travail critique annonce/ 

ORIGINAL REFERENCE 

The following is the original reference for a name placed on 
an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
punctatus, Cataphractus, Bloch, 1794, Naturgeschichte der 
auslandischen Fische, vol. 8, p. 90, pi. 377, fig. 2. 



CERTIFICATE 

1 hereby certify that the votes cast on voting paper (80)3 were 
cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting 
paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being 
the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1 169. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

3 September 1980 



74 Bull, zool Nom., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 



XENOCREPIS FOERSTER, 1 856 (HYMENOPTERA, 

CHALCIDOIDEA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE 

SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)1437 

By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature 

The present application arises out of a preliminary approach 
by Dr Oswald Peck (then oWepartment of Agriculture, Entomology 
Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada) in August 1959. His applicat- 
ion was not published because he never presented it in final form. It 
is now presented on the advice of Dr Zdenek Boucek {Common- 
wealth Institute of Entomology, London), for whose advice I am 
grateful. 

2. Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 {Hymen. Stud. Aachen (2), 
p. 64) was proposed without any included species. Ashmead, 1904, 
Mem. Carnegie Mus. vol. 1, p. 276, was the first author to refer a 
species to the genus, and he then fixed Caenocrepis arenicola 
Thomson, 1878 {Hymen. Skand. vol. 5, p. 50) as type species, by 
subsequent monotypy. The effect of that fixation was to make the 
two generic names objective synonyms, for C. arenicola is the type 
species of Caenocrepis , by monotypy. Ashmead seems to have been 
in some confusion, for on p. 393 of his work he said that the type 
species of Xenocrepis was unknown. In effect, he seems to have 
acted as though he regarded Caenocrepis as an emendation or a mis- 
spelling of Xenocrepis. On p. 368 he said 'Caenocrepis Thomson 
(= Xenocrepis Forster), Hym. Skand. V. 1875, p. 51 (Type C. 
arenicola Thomson)'. A further unfortunate effect of Ashmead's 
action was to transfer Xenocrepis to a different tribe from that 
intended by Foerster. 

3. Ashmead's paper was published in January 1904. On 
15 October 1904, Mayr {Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, vol. 54, 
Heft 8, 9, p. 584) placed his new species X pura as the only species 
in Xenocrepis. This is not only consistent with Foerster's intention, 
based on his own original material, but has been accepted by nearly 
all subsequent authors, including: 

Kurdjunov, \9\3,Rev. Russe Entomol.,\ol 13, p. 6 

Szelenyi, \94\, Fragm. Faun. Hungar., vol. 4 (2), p. 40 

[Baird] , 1949, Canad. Insect Pest Rev. vol. 27, p. 276 

Carlson, Lange & Sciaroni, 1951 (1952),/ Econ. Entomol., vol. 44, 

p. 963 
Peck, 1952, in Muesebeck et al., Agric. Monogr. U.S. Dept. Agric, 

no. 2, p. 556 
McLeod, 1953, Proc. entomol. Soc. British Columbia, vol. 49, 

pp. 16-17 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1 98 1 75 



Ferri&re, 1954, in DeXucchi^ Bull, entomol. Res., vol. 45, p. 265 
Boucek, 1957, Klic ZvJreny CXR, Prague, p. 239 
Gahan, 1957, in Welz, Ann. entomol. Soc. America, vol. 50, p. 220 
Graham, 1957, Entomol. Mon. Mag., vol. 93, p. 235 
Boucek, \95S, Acta entomol. Mus. nat. Prague vol. 32, p. 398 
Graham, 1969, Bull. brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.) (Entomol.), Suppl. 16, 
p. 638. 

4. Some of the above references refer to the economic 
importance of X. pura as a pest of the cabbage seed weevil. Boucek, 
1958, treated Caenocrepis as a vahd generic name but drew 
attention to the need for a Commission ruling on the type species 
of the genera involved. Only Gahan & Pagan, 1923, Bull. U.S. nat. 
Mus. vol. 124, p. 153, have suggested that a new genus should be 
proposed for X. pura. Other authors have paid more respect to 
Foerster's intention than to Ashmead's taxonomic error. If a 
separate genus is required for X. pura, which in the meantime has 
become a junior synonym of Mesopolobus morys (Walker, 1848) 
(see Graham, 1969, p. 653), Disemiscus Ghesquiere, 1946, Rev. 
Zool.-Bot. afric. vol. 39, p. 369 is available. 

5. Graham, 1969, in the latest authoritative monograph 
on this group, treats Xenocrepis as a synonym of Mesopolobus 
Westwood, 1833. If, however, the taxonomic concept represented 
by Foerster's name were again to be recognised, it would be better 
to use his well-established name for it than to adopt Disemiscus. 

6. The Commission is accordingly asked 

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations 
of type species hitherto made for Xenocrepis 
Foerster, 1856, and to fix Xenocrepis pura Mayr, 
1904 as type species of that genus; 

(2) to place the generic name Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856 
(gender: feminine), type species, by designation 
under the plenary powers in (1) above, Xenocrepis 
pura Mayr, 1904, on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the specific name morys Walker, 1848, as 
published in the binomen Pteromalus morys (the 
valid senior specific synonym for the type species 
oi Xenocrepis Foerster, 1856) on the Official List 
of Specific Names in Zoology. 



76 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 1 , February 1981 



REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ARTICLE 40 OF THE 
CODE Z.N.(S.)2250 

By Marian H. Pettibone {National Museum of Natural 
History, Washington B.C. 20560, U.S.A.) 

I am asking the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature to seriously consider changing Article 40 of the 
Code concerning the conservation of a family-group name after 
1960 and making it retroactive. A family-group name should reflect 
the name and meaning of the type genus. If the name of the type 
genus goes into synonymy, the family name should also be 
replaced, with the exception of a name long estabUshed in the 
literature and whose meaning is well understood. I cite the follow- 
ing case in Polychaeta as a basis for my objection to the rule. 

In the NEREIDIDAE, Micronereis variegata Claparede, 
1863 has long been considered to be an aberrant member of the 
family and referred to often in the hterature because of its unique 
features. Four species were subsequently added to Micronereis. 

Notophycus minutus Knox & Cameron, 1 970 was placed in 
a new family NOTOPHYCIDAE. Phyllodocella bodegae Fauchald 
& Belman, 1972 was added to this family. 

In a revisionary study on the species o{ Micronereis, Banse, 
1977, Essays on Polychaetous Annelids, Allan Hancock Foundat- 
ion, referred Notophycus and Phyllodocella to Micronereis and 
placed them in a subfamily NOTOPHYCINAE, with type genus 
Micronereis (syn.: Notophycus) following Article 40. 

We now have a subfamily with the single genus Micronereis 
and eight species (according to a recent revisionary study by 
Hannelore Paxton). It is only logical that it should be called 
MICRONEREIDINAE, reflecting the well-known genus Mcronerm, 
and not Notophycus, based on a misunderstanding of the diagnostic 
characters and not well-known. 




Readers of the Bulletin are reminded that the main regular source 
of income to finance the work of the Commission comes from sales 
of this periodical, and that this is insufficient to meet the needs of 
zoologists for the services provided by the Commission and to 
maintain the office at an efficient level. Help in the form of dona- 
tions and bequests will, therefore, be received with gratitude. 

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to 
express its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of 
the British Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the 
Commission. 



© 1981 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 
Printed In England by INPRINT OF LUTON {Designers & Printers) LTD. 




Volume38, Part 2 l ^atSfV^i >SSN 0007 - 5167 

pp.i-iv,77- 152 VoP""^" <^/ 30th April 1981 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 

The Official Organ of 

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



LONDON 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
c/o British Museum (Natural History) 
Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD 

Price £10.00 

(All rights reserved) 



THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION Oil \ 4 MAY ^'"/St 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE I PURCHASED ^Tj 

A. The Officers of the Commission >426y v^^^ 

President: Dr. C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab.. USDA c/o U.S. 

National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.). 
Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, 

S-223 62, Lund, Sweden). 
Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell 

Road, London SW7 5BD). 
Assistant Secretary: Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), 

Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD). 



B. The Members of the Commission 

(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) 

Prof. T. HABE (Department of Marine Science, Tokai University, 1000 Orido. 

Shimizu City 414 Japan (20 February 1972) Marine Biology 
Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, 

Edinburgh EHl IJF, Scotland) (20 February 1 972) /'Cou«c///or; MoIIusca 
Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London 

SW7 5BD) (20 February 1972) (Assistant Secretary) Lepidoptera 
Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, 

Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972) 

Neotropical Hymenoptera 
Prof. Enrico TORTONESE (Istituto Zooprofilattico, Lungo Bisagno Dalmazia 

45A, 16141, Genova, Italy) (30 September, 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata 
Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, 

Sweden) (30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology 
Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de 

Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) 

Echinoidea; Asteroidea 
Prof. E. BINDER (Museum dWstoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, 

Switzerland) (30 September 1972) MoUusca 
Prof. Harold E. YOKES (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New 

Orleans, Louisiana 70118, U.S.A.) (30 September 1972) Mollusca 
Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Postbus 9517, 

2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) 

Crustacea 
Dr. G. BERNARD! (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 bis rue de Buffon, 

75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Lepidoptera 
Prof. C. DUPUIS (Museum National dHistoire Naturelle, 43 rue Cuvier, 75231, 

Paris, Cedex 05 France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera 
Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Instytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk, 

ul. Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975) Coleoptera 
Prof. H.E. WELCH (Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, 

Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2 Canada) (17 March 1976) Nematoda 
Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 

Hamburg 13, Germany) (29 September 1976) Arachnida, Myriapoda 



11 

Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (College Fellow in Life Sciences, School of Applied Science, 

Canberra College of Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 

2616, Australia) (29 September 1976) (Councillor) Mammalia: Recent 

and Fossil 
Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. 

National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (29 September 

1 976) (President) Diptera 
Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) 

(29 September 1 976) Reptilia; E D P Methods 
Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitdtsgebiet 

Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) (27 December 1978) Palaeontology 
Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of 

Tromso, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromso, Norway) (27 December 1978) 

Parasitology 
Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN, (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 

B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology 
Dr. P.M. BAYER (f/.5. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 

20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Octocorallia; Systematics 
Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 

20742, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics 
Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, 

London SW7 5BD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology 
Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, 

Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea 
Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN, (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University 
of Turku. SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida 



INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



A. The Members of the Trust 
Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) 
Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) 
Dr. J.H. Callomon, F.R.I.C. 
Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. 
Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. 
Men. J. Forest 

Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. 
Dr. R.H. Hedley 
Dr. N.E. Hickin 
Dr. L.B. Holthuis 
Prof. Dr. O. Kraus 
Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S. 
Dr. C.W. Sabrosky (ex officio) 
Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. 
Dr. G.F. deWitte 
Dr. C.A. Wright (Observer) 

B. The Officer of the Trust 
Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) 



CONTENTS 

Page 

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology 

(a) Date of commencement of voting by the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on applications 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77 

(b) Possible use of the plenary powers of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in certain cases 77 

(c) Receipt of new appUcations 70 

Special Announcement 'o 

7o 

Comments 

On the proposal on Dactylopius and Pseudococcus with additional 
proposal to suppress Coccus adonidum Linneaus, 1767 and 
Pedicuus coffeae Linnaeus, 1767 and for validation of 
Dactylopius longispinus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1867 (Insecta- 
Homoptera) (E.M.Danzig, I.M.Kerzhner & D.R.MiUer) 79 

On the proposed designation of a type species for Gnathodus Pander' 
1856 (Conodonta) (H.Kozur, H.R.Lane & W.Ziegler- repUes 
by H.Kozur & I.S.Barskov) ^ ' ^ 

On the proposed amendments to the International Code of Zooiogicai 

Nomenclature regarding ichnotaxa (G.Hahn & The Secretary ... 93 

Opinions 

Opinion 1170. SATURNIIDAE Boisduval, 1837 (Lepidoptera) 
placed on Official List 

^^^\TJ}1^ • \^' T"" °^ *^" B^neric n^ePetro'myzon Unmcus, ^^ 

1758 (Pisces) IS Petromyzont- 

Opinion 1172. Ascidia intestinalis Linnaeus^ 1767 '(Tunicata) 

conserved ' 

^^'"io^nV^'^^- "^^^ *yP^ ^V^ci^^ of Hiltermannicyihere B^ssiouni '°° 

nnin V^nT^l^u' Ostracoda) is Cythereis turbida MuUer, 1 894 . . ,02 

Opinion 1174. The type species of Atractocera Meigen 1803 

(Diptera) is Tipula regelationis Linnaeus, 1758 
Opmion 1175. Monstrilla intermedia Kriczagin, 1877 (Copepoda) 

suppressed v p h ay 

Opinion 1176 Echis co/ora^a [sic rGuenther,' " 1878 ' (Reptilia' ^°^ 

r«7.^^n '^'^/^.","°'"^"''^^*""^ precedence ov^x Echis froenata 

[sic] Dumenl,Bibron&Dumeril, 1854 

Opinion 1 177. Cossmannella Mayer-Eymar, 1 896 (MoUusca,' Bivalvia) 

designation of type species ... 
Opinion nii Megasternum Mulsant,' 1844.' and Cwop/e«r«m 
Oninfon n 7Q P /^!?'''*'' ^'^"Pt^'-^)^ type species determined . . 114 

^ «o.i .?• ^°^>'^''"^"^ Germar, 1817 and Phyllobius Germar, 

1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera) : conserved in accordance with 

current usage ... 

117 



opinion 1180. Thamnophilus amazonicus Sclater, 1858 (Aves) 

conserved 120 

Opinion 1181. Microdryas Laseron, 1950 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) 

designation of a type species 122 

New and revived cases 

Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924 (Acarina): proposals to clarify name of 
the type species and to conserve name of an important pest 
species (P.L. Robertson) 125 

Manati Steller, 1774 and Trichechus exunguis (Natterer in Diesing, 
1839) (Mammalia, Sirenia): proposal to place these names on 
Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology 
(D.L.Domning) 130 

Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed design- 
ation of type species (A. Waren) 134 

Nepa cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Heteroptera, Nepidae): 

proposed conservation (I.M.Kerzhner) 13g 

Eutermes exitiosus Hill, 1925 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed 

conservation (J.A. L.Watson & F.J.Gay) 142 

Coccus Linnaeus, 1758 and Parthenolecanium §ulc, 1908 (Insecta, 
Homoptera, Coccidae): proposed designation of type species 
(E.M.Danzig & I.M.Kerzhner) 147 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Volume 38, part 2 (pp. 77 - 152) 30 April, 1981 



NOTICES 

(a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal circum- 
stances the Commission may start to vote on applications pub- 
lished in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months 
after the publication of each appUcation. Any zoologist who wishes 
to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited 
to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the 
Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach 
the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. 

(b) Possible use of the plenary powers. The possible use by 
the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following 
apphcations published in the present part of the Bulletin (those 
marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b 
and 79b): 



(1) Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924 (Acarina): proposals to 
clarify name of the type species and to conserve name 
of an important pest species. Z.N.(S.) 1450. 
P.L.Robertson. 
*(2) Manati Steller, 1 774 and Trichechus exunguis Natterer 
in Diesing, 1839) (Mammalia, Sirenia): proposal to place 
names on Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names 
in Zoology. Z.N.(S.) 2338. D.P.Domning. 

(3) Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): 
proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2238. 
A. Waren. 

(4) Nepa cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Heteroptera, 
Nepidae): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2144. 
I.M.Kerzhner. 

(5) Coccus Linnaeus, 1758 and Parthenolecanium §ulc, 
1908 (Insecta, Homoptera, Coccidae): proposed design- 
ation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2125. E.M.Danzig & 
I.M.Kerzhner. 

*(6) Eutermes exitiosus Hill, 1925 (Insecta, Isoptera): 
proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2290. J.A.L.Watson & 
F.J.Gay. 



78 Bull. zool. Norn. , vol 38, pt 2, April 1 98 1 



(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applica- 
tions have been received since those notified in vol. 38(1) on 26 
February 1981. That marked with an asterisk involves the appli- 
cation of Articles 23a-b and 79b. 

(1) Damalis planiceps Fabricius, 1805 (Insecta, Diptera): 
request for designation of a type species. Z.N.(S.) 2369. 
K.G.V.Smith. 

(2) Alpheus lottini Guerin, 1829 (Crustacea: Decapoda: 
Natantia): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2370. 
A.H.Banner & D.M.Banner. 

(3) BAGRIDAE Bleeker, 1858 (Pisces): proposed conser- 
vation. Z.N.(S.) 2371. R.M.Bailey & D.J.Stewart. 

*(4) Alveolinella bontangensis Rutten, 1913 (Protista: 
Foraminiferida) proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2372 
G.C.H.Chaproniere. 



SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT 

An article by the Secretary, entitled "The International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: its role in the modern 
world", was published in Biology International, The News Magazine 
of the International Union of Biological Sciences (I.U.B.S.), No 2, 
December 1980. 

c/o British Museum (Natural History) R.V. MELVILLE 

Cromwell Road Secretary, International 

London SW7 5BD Commission on Zoological 

United Kingdom Nomenclature 

March 1981 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 79 



COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL ON DACTYLOPIUS AND 

PSEUDOCOCCUS, WITH ADDITIONAL PROPOSAL TO USE 

THE PLENARY POWERS FOR SUPPRESSION OF COCCUS 

ADONIDUM LINNAEUS, 1 767 AND PEDICUL US COFFEAE 

LINNAEUS, 1767 AND FOR VALIDATION OF DACTYLOPIUS 

LONGISPINUS TARGIONI-TOZZETTI, 1867 (INSECTA: 

HOMOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 2091 

(see vol. 31, pp. 146-153) 

(1) by E.M. Danzig and I.M. Kerzhner {Zoological Institute, Academy of 
Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad) 

We give full support to all actions proposed by D.R. Miller. However, 
his conclusions on the identity of Coccus adonidum Linnaeus and Dactylopius 
longispinus Targioni-Tozzetti are borrowed from the work of De Lotto, 1965, 
which contains some inexactitude. Therefore several additional proposals 
should be made for stabilization of the current nomenclature in the genus 
Pseudococcus. 

2. De Lotto, 1965, from partial study of the original descriptions con- 
cluded that: (1) Coccus adonidum Linnaeus is identical with the insect 
described by Ledermiiller, 1 762, as 'Koffeebaumlausz', that is to say Pediculus 
coffeae Linnaeus; (2) the insect described by Ledermiiller is not the common 
long-tailed mealy-bug, therefore the name Pseudococcus adonidum (Linnaeus) 
cannot be used for this mealy-bug; (3) Coccus adonidum seems to be not even 
a coccid, because Ledermiiller described the antennae as four-segmented 
(instead of eight-segmented) and the tarsus as having two claws (instead of 
one); (4) Pseudococcus longispinus (Targioni-Tozzetti) is the valid name under 
the Code for the common long-tailed mealy-bug. All these conclusions except 
(2) are inexact. 

3. Linnaeus, 1746, p. 341, Geoffroy, 1762, p. 511, and Ledermiiller, 
1762, pp. 16-19, pi. 9, gave the first descriptions of coccids damaging intro- 
duced plants in greenhouses in Europe. Linnaeus and Ledermiiller regarded 
these insects as lice and described the females only. Geoffroy discovered the 
males and correctly placed these insects among the coccids. A number of 
wrong statements and assumptions can be found in the description of Leder- 
miiller but it is certain that his description and figures cannot be referred to 
any other insects than mealy-bugs. 

4. Linnaeus, 1767, p. 740, briefly described under the name Coccus 
adonidum the insects formerly studied by him and by Geoffroy. After this 
description he adds 'Conf. Lederm. 1762. t. 9. Pediculus coffeae'. Here 
'Pediculus coffeae' is in fact rather a translation of 'Koffeebaumlausz' in Latin 
for reference but on the other hand it is formed as a binomina' name and can 
be regarded as such. The initial 'conf.' (abridged Latin 'conferre' - compare or 
'confinis' — closely related) shows that Linnaeus regarded Pediculus coffeae as 
a species distinct from his Coccus adonidum. The reference to Lederm iiller's 
work made the name Pediculus coffeae available. 

5. Linnaeus, 1746, Geoffroy, 1762 and Ledermiiller, 1762 mention 
that the females have a segmented body, distinct antennae and legs, the waxy 
secretion (named snow-white wool or cotton by old authors) forms angular 



80 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1 981 



projections on the margin of the body and eggs are laid in special cocoons 
(ovisacs) formed by this wax. Such a combination of characters among all 
greenhouse coccids corresponds only to the genera Pseudococcus and 
Planococcus (formerly united under the first name). 

6. Four species of these genera are known as polyphagous greenhouse 
pests in Europe. The peculiarities of the living females of three of these species 
are quoted from literature and those for the obscure mealy-bug are based on 
personal observations. 

(1) Long-taUed mealy-bug (formerly named Pseudococcus adonidum L. 
but after the paper of De Lotto renamed as P. longispinus Targ.-Tozz.). Body 
elongate, green; caudal waxy formations extremely long (longer than the 
body), filamentous; viviparous. 

(2) Citrophilous mealy-bug (formerly named P. gahani Green, 1915, 
but in recent years the name has been changed to P. fragilis Brain, 1912). 
Body elongate, crimson; caudal waxy formations twice as long and wide as the 
remaining ones, equal to one-third of the body length; a good distinguishing 
feature is the presence of four rows of impressed bare points extending length- 
wise of the dorsum (Borchsenius, 1949, fig. 77; Ferris, 1950;McKenzie, 1967); 
egg laying. 

(3) Obscure mealy-bug {P. obscurus Essig, 1909, formerly confused with 
the very similar P. maritimus Ehrhom, 1900 and better known under the last 
name). Body elongate, pink to red; caudal waxy formations equal to from 
one-third to one half of the body length, filamentous; middle part of the 
dorsum not bare; egg laying. 

(4) Citrus mealy-bug {Planococcus citri Risso, 1813). Body relatively 
shorter and wider than in other species, red or green; all waxy formations 
(18 in number) relatively short and the caudal ones not longer than or slightly 
longer than the remaining ones; middle part of the dorsum with a nearly bare 
longitudinal stripe; egg laying. 

7. Linnaeus, 1746, mentioned the longitudinal rows of bare points 
typical for the citrophilous mealy-bug — two rows on each side ('margine 
punctis prominentibus utrinque circiter 14', 'spatium quod linea dorsali et 
margine lateral! interjacet totidem punctis prominulis secundum longitudinem 
dispositis notatur'). His remark on the egg laying females ('folliculum sibi struit 
.... e lana nivea contectum, ultra quem .... ova flava includit'), on the caudal 
waxy formations ('cauda bifida') and on the body form ('corpus oblongum') 
are not inconsistent with the citrophilous mealy-bug. The raised longitudinal 
dorsal line in the description of Linnaeus seems to correspond to the slightly 
raised medial part of the body and is not evidence for identity with Orthezia, 
as was presumed by Cockerell, 1899. Geoffroy, 1762, described the body of 
the female as elongated, pink, whoUy covered by wax, caudal waxy formations 
longer than the remaining ones and the eggs laid in a 'nest' similar to a flock of 
white cotton. This description might refer either to the citrophilous mealy-bug 
or to the obscure mealy-bug, but it should be noted that both Geoffroy and 
Linnaeus believed that they had the same species. 

8. LedermiiUer, 1762, figured 18 pairs of short waxy formations of 
nearly equal length; he described an impressed longitudinal line on the body 
which seems to be the bare longitudinal stripe; the colour is given as brown or 
brown-yellow; the laying of eggs in 'nests' from snow-white wool is described; 
the body is figured as relatively short. The description coincides well with the 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



citrus mealy-bug. 

9. It follows from the above with reasonable certainty that Coccus 
adonidum equals the citrophilous mealy-bug {Pseudococcus fragilis) and 
Pediculus coffeae the citrus mealy-bug {Planococcus citri). Targioni-Tozzetti 
(1867) proposed for '^Coccus adonidum auct.' a replacement name Dactylopius 
longispinus, but in fact he described the long-tailed mealy-bug. Subsequent 
authors, following Targioni-Tozzetti's concept, but not his nomenclature, used 
the name adonidum for the long-tailed mealy-bug. 

10. When De Lotto discovered that Coccus adonidum was misidentified 
it would have been best to designate a neotype of C. adonidum under the 
plenary powers in concordance with the general usage of the name. However, 
this was not done and the name P. longispinus received general usage for the 
long-taUed mealy-bug. Now restoration of the name adonidum either for the 
citrophilous mealy-bug or long-tailed mealy-bug will bring confusion, thus 
we propose its suppression under the plenary powers. 

11. Pediculus coffeae Linnaeus, 1767 was never used as a valid name. 
As the name is a senior synonym of the generally used Planococcus citri (Risso, 
1813), we propose its suppression under the plenary powers. 

12. Dactylopius longispinus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1867 was proposed as a 
replacement name for Coccus adonidum Linnaeus. Therefore according to 
Article 72d of the Code Dactylopius longispinus should be regarded as an 
objective synonym of Coccus adonidum, regardless of the fact that Targioni- 
Tozzetti's description refers to another species. In order to avoid further con- 
fusion in nomenclature of well known and economically important species we 
propose to designate under the plenary powers as neotype of Dactylopius long- 
ispinus the following specimen from the collection of the Zoological Institute, 
Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad: a female mounted on a slide 
and separated by a red circle from two other specimens on the same sUde, with 
the following label - 'Moscow [USSR] , Botanical garden of the Moscow State 
University [in Russian] , 21 . vii.52, on Dracaena fragrans' and with appropriate 
neotype label which will be added after the designation is approved. The 
neotype corresponds fully with the description of Pseudococcus longispinus 
(Targioni-Tozzetti) given by McKenzie (1967, pp. 303-5, fig. 119, col. pi. 
XVI). Nothing is known of the fate of Targioni-Tozzeti's collection of coccids 
and we presume it is lost. The specimens examined by Targioni-Tozzeti were 
most probably from Italy and the neotype is from Moscow, but as it is a 
species introduced in Europe, this geographical distinction is not important. 

13. In accordance with the above we propose the following additions 
and emendations to the proposal of Miller. 

( 1 ) add the following points : — 

(e) to suppress the specific names adonidum Linnaeus, 1 767, as 
published in the binomen Coccus adonidum and coffeae 
Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Pediculus 
coffeae for the Law of Priority but not for the Law of 
Homonymy. 

(f) to designate as neotype of Dactylopius longispinus the 
specimen mentioned above. 

(7) Before 'on the Official List', add the following 'as defined by 

the neotype designated under the plenary powers in 1(f) above.' 

(10) Place the specific names adonidum Linnaeus, 1767, as published 



82 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



Ln the binomen Coccus adonidum and coffeae Linnaeus, 1767, 
as published in the binomen Pediculus coffeae and as suppressed 
at (l)(e) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology. 

REFERENCES 

BORCHSENIUS, N.S., 1949. Coccoidea, Pseudococcidae. Fauna of the USSR. 

vol. 7, n.s. 38. Zool. Inst. Akad. Nauk. Moscow-Leningrad, 383pp. 
COCKERELL, T.D.A., 1899. Some notes on Coccidae. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. 

Philad., 1899, pp. 259-275. 
GEOFFROY, E.L., 1762. Histoire abregee des Insectes qui se trouvent aux 

environs de Paris, vol. I. Paris, Durand, 523 pp. 
DE LOTTO, G., 1965. The nomenclatural status of the common long tailed 

mealy bug (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). J. ent. Soc. S. Africa, vol. 

27(2), pp. 226-229. 
FERRIS, G.F., 1950. Atlas of the scale insects of North America. Ser. V. The 

Pseudococcidae (pt. I). Stanford Univ. Press, California, 278 pp. 
LEDERMULLER, M.F., 1762. Nachlese seiner mikroskopischen Gemuths- 

und Augen-Ergotzung. vols. I— V. 16 + 94 pp., C. de Launoy, Numberg. 
LINNAEUS, C, 1746. Fauna suecica. L. Salvii, Stockholmiae, 411 pp. 
1767. Systema Naturae, ed. XII, vol. I, pt. 2, pp.533-1327. L.Salvii, 

Holmiae. 
McKENZIE, H.L., 1967. Mealybugs of California with taxonomy, biology and 

control of North American species. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 

525 pp. 



(2) Reply by Douglass R. Miller 

The comment by Danzig & Kerzhner significantly improves my applic- 
ation on Dactylopius and Pseudococcus. In particular, their proposal to des- 
ignate a neotype of Dactylopius longispinus, the type species of Pseudococcus, 
would stabilise the identity of that species. 

(2) I am not certain of the identities of Coccus adonidum Linnaeus and 
Pediculus coffeae Linnaeus. Danzig & Kerzhner give good circumstantial 
evidence supporting their belief that these are respectively senior synonyms of 
Pseudococcus calceolariae (Mask.) (= P. fragilis Brian) and Planococcus citri 
(Risso), but some of the discrepancies pointed out by De Lotto, 1965, cause 
concern. Furthermore, because P. calceolariae is apparently of Australian 
origin, it is doubtful if Linnaeus could have seen it. However, the suppression 
of C. adonidum and P. coffeae as suggested by Danzig & Kerzhner will solve 
the problem whether they or De Lotto are right. 

(3) I am, however, concerned about the specimen that they propose 
for designation as neotype of D. longispinus. According to Article 75c(5), 
a Moscow specimen could indeed only be designated as neotype by the use of 
the plenary powers, because the type locality must almost certainly have been 
in Italy. At the U.S. National Museum there are 28 slides of P. longispinus from 
Italy, so clearly the species is not uncommon in that country. It seems clear to 



Bull. zooL Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1 98 1 83 

""^ ,?f ' !""" Targioni-Tozzetti's original material is lost, an Italian specimen 
could be designated as neotype without recourse to the Commission 
n _*■ • XT 7^^"^ ^° ^^- ^- Tremblay of the Istituto di Entomologia Agraria 
Portici Naples, Italy, I have received 10 slides, each containing one specimen of 
Dactylopius longispinus Targioni-Tozzetti from Cycas revoluta growing in the 
Botanical Gardens in Florence 29 October, 1979. I here designate a specimen 
irom this senes as neotype and have marked the slide as such. It is very probable 
that Targioni-Tozzetti coUected from this locality. The neotype is deposited at 
the Portici Institute. Other specimens from the material provided by 
Dr. Tremblay will be deposited in (I) Florence, (2) British Museum (Natural 
History) London, (3) United States National Museum, Washington DC 
(4) Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (5) University of California' 
Davis, (6) Pretoria, South Africa, (7) Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences 
Leningrad (8) Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg and (9) Mexico City 

(5) In theu- paragraph 12, Danzig & Kerzhner state that Dactylopius 
longispinus was proposed as a replacement name for Coccus adonidum Linn- 
aeus. Actually Targioni-Tozzetri realised that C. adonidum was mis-identi- 
hed by most authors, who were dealing with a species different from the one 
descnbed by Lmnaeus. D. longispinus is therefore a name for a previously 
undescnbed species, not a replacement name, and Article 72d is inappropriate 
I accordingly propose to amend Danzig & Kerzhner's proposals as foUows: 
(l)(f) delete. 

(7) read 'place the specific name longispinus Targioni-Tozzetti 
as pubUshed m the binomen Dactylopius longispinus and as 
interpreted by reference to the neotype designated in paragraph 
4 ot this note (specific name of type species of Pseudococcus 
/;t.T°?'*' 1^"^° ^y designation under the plenary powers in 
(IKd) above) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology'. 

e«T.^ COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE 
SPECIES FOR GNATHODUS PANDER, 1856 (CONODONTA) Z N (S )2279 
(see voL 36, pp. 57-62, 201-202; voL 37, p. 67) 

(1) by H. Kozur (Staatliche Museen Meiningens. Schloss Elizabethenburg 
Meiningen, DDI}). See also comment (3) 

...c Q. ^"'^""^ years Alekseev (lecture to the 1975 Congress on Carbonifer- 
ous Stra igraphy m Moscow), Kozur & Mostler, 1976, Barskov, Alekseev & 

nfr\l J ' n !-'"',? ^'^^"' ^ ^^^' *^^^" d^'^"^^^ the taxonomic status 
of Gjiathodus Pander, 1856. The conclusions of Alekseev, 1975, Kozur & 
Mostler, 1976 and Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva, 1977, are nearly identical 
^NATHOmn A F "? f/>'^^^''«f"^Cooper, 1 939, for the Lower Carboniferous 
GNATHODIDAE of the 'Gnathodus' semiglaber - 'G. ' bilineatus and 'G ' 
girtyi groups because the Upper Carboniferous type species of Gnathodus G 
mosquensis Pander, 1856, is certainly not congeneric with those Lower 
r„.r!.°f ^™'- ^"'''°^' Alekseev & Goreva, 1977, proposed to restrict 
Gnathodus to G. mosquensis and regarded that name as a nomen dubium 

rZh^H^ tL "^ ^"^"'^ '*"''^" '"^^t demonstrate the identity of 
Gnathodus with Strep tognathodus Stauffer & Plummer, 1 932 or Idiognathodus 



84 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



Gunnell, 1931. Kozur & Mostler, 1976, regarded Streptognathodus as a junior 
synonym of Gnathodus and suggested that S. cancellosus (Gunnell, 1931) 
might be a junior synonym of G. mosquensis (they did not, as Barskov, Alek- 
seev & Goreva, 1977, and Lane & Ziegler, 1979, wrongly state, positively 
affirm that synonymy), because the only platform conodonts in the Dorog- 
omilov horizon (from which the type material of G. mosquensis came) are 
S. cancellosus and S. oppletus Ellison, 1941, and the latter cannot be compared 
with G. mosquensis. Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva, 1977, did not include 
S. cancellosus in Streptognathodus, but this view is not accepted by any other 
conodont workers. 

Lane & Ziegler, 1979, expressed quite different conclusions on the 
taxonomic status of Gnathodus. They proposed that G. texanus Roundy be 
designated as a new type species of Gnathodus and that the genus be restricted 
to Lower Carboniferous species. This is quite unwarranted and its acceptance 
would set up a precedent against the Code for the following reasons: 

(1) as clearly shown by Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva, 1977, the type 
material of G. mosquensis came from the DorogomUov Horizon of Upper 
Carboniferous (Kasimovian) age. A Lower Carboniferous age is quite imposs- 
ible in the context of the geology of this region; 

(2) the opinion of Lane & Ziegler, 1979, that Gnathodus 'has always 
been thought to be dominantly Lower Carboniferous in age' is not correct. 
Until recently Gnathodus was used for a wide range of Lower, Middle and 
Upper Carboniferous, and even for Permian Gnathodidae. Because conondont- 
bearing beds are much more widely distributed in the Lower Carboniferous 
than in the Middle Carboniferous-to-Permian, there are many more papers on 
Lower Carboniferous conodonts (including 'Gnathodus') than on Middle 
Carboniferous-to-Permian ones. But the percentage of papers on Middle Carb- 
niferous-to-Permian conodonts in which Gnathodus is mentioned is very high. 
In recent years, many Lower Carboniferous species of Gnathodus have been 
transferred to Protognathodus Ziegler, 1969 , and Paragnathodus Higgins, 1975, 
and many new genera have also been introduced for the Middle Carboniferous- 
to-Permian forms. Even so, Gnathodus has been used frequently in the last 
10 years for Middle Carboniferous-to-Permian GNATHODIDAE, e.g.: 

Lane, Merrill, etal., 1971 (Middle and Upper Carboniferous): G. basslieri 
(Harris & HoUingsworth, 1933), G. bassleri symmetricus Lane, 
1967, G. roundyi Gunnell, 1931, G. noduliferus (Ellison & 
Graves, 1941), G. dilatus Stauffer & Plummer, 1932, and a 
'Pennsylvanian Gnathodus lineage' (p. 376); 

Rabe, 1977 (Middle Carboniferous to Permian): G. bassleri, G. bassleri 
symmetricus, G. bucaramangus Rabe, 1977, G. lateralis (Higgins 
& Bouckaert, 1968, G. noduliferus, G. roundyi, G. whitei 
(Rhodes, 1963); 

Requadt, Becker et al., 1977 (Middle Carboniferous): G. bassleri sym- 
metricus; 

Wang, 1978 (Permian): G. hanzhongensis Wang, 1978. 

(3) Lane & Ziegler's argument that the future application of Gnathodus 
to Lower Carboniferous GNATHODIDAE would preserve nomenclatural 
stability in both palaeontological and stratigraphical literature is wrong. Collin- 



Bull. zooL Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 85 

son Rexroad & Thompson, 1971 (table 1) used Gnathodus in only seven not 
eight of the major stratigraphic subdivisions. Moreover, two of those species 
(G^ kuehni and G. kockeli) belong to Protognathodus Ziegler 1969 and the 
others must be placed in Dryphenotus Cooper, 1939. Lane MerriU et al 

}xJ}:,^^^^F"''^^'^^"^ ^^''^^ ^""^^ f°^ "^^jo^ subdivision of thePennsy'lvanian 
(Middle and Upper Carboniferous). Most of these species can now be placed 
in Neognathodus Dunn, 1 970. 

(4) In both the Lower and the Middle-Upper Carboniferous most 
GNATHODIDAE have untU recently been placed in Gnathodus and in both 
cases they were used to name stratigraphical subdivisions. We cannot therefore 
choose as the new type species a Lower Carboniferous species that certainly 
does not belong in the same genus as the original type species, the Upper 
Carboniferous G. mosquensis. 

We therefore ask the Commission to reject Lane & Ziegler's proposals. 
In the present state of knowledge, Gnathodus must be rejected as a nomen 
dubium unless a new type species is designated from the type horizon in the 
type area (Dorogomilov Horizon, Kasimovian). In the latter case Streptogna- 
thodus Stauffer & Plummer, 1932, which contains the only platform species 
of that honzon, would fall as a junior synonym of Gnathodus. 



REFERENCES 

^^'''''iTomelkW ^^'^f ' ^f * ^°^^^^' N-V- 1977. Taksonomicheskii 
1 nomenklatumyi status konodontov rodov Gnathodus Pander, 1856 
Paleont. Zhurn., 1977, pp. 131-134 

COLLISON, C, REXROAD C.B. & THOMPSON, T.L., 1971 Conodont 
zonation of the North American Mississipian, in Sweet W C & Bere- 

COOPErTL 1939''rn' ""r: '?'■ ^''. ^'"'"■^'^ N*^- 127. PP.' 353-394. 

hn'm. / P / Conodonts from a Bushberg-Hannibal horizon in Okla- 

noma.y. /'a/eow/. vol. 13,pp 329-422 
DUNN, DX. 1970. Middle Carboniferous conodonts from the western United 

312 34? P^y^°^""y °^ *1^« Pl^tf°"» g^°"P-^- Po^leont., vS^.^^Xl 

^^^^^°i5;pp.\^07-f4T''''" °^ *^' Pennsylvanian conodonts. /. Paleont. vol. 

'^""'^ y^Lf ■"; ' ^\ ^. ^""^ilT^^ ^'°"^ *^^ P°^ Scott Limestone of Missouri. 
J. Paleont. vol. 5, pp. 244-252 

"^'"'''d^n'JsLt o?,''H"''''r^™' ^•^•' ^^"- New Pennsylvaniancono- 
donts from Oklahoma, ^mer. 7. i-c/ vol 25 pp 193-204 

"^^^'^n' ^,^-/ 975. Conodont zonation of the Late Visean-Early Westphal- 

Bull. geolSurv. Great Britain, t^o.ST, ^^ \-9Q 

^^..^ Tr'f^' "• ''''■ N^"^ Conodonten aus dem Jungpalaoz- 
I ANF ^H x!?^oo't^"''- ^'''^- P'^^"""'- ^'''- Innsbruck vol. 6, pp. 1-33 

'con^d ^,^^^^LL, G.K. et al. 1971. North American Pennsylvanian 

conodont stratigraphy, in Sweet, W.C. & Bergstrom, S.M. (eds), A/em 

^eo/.5oc.yl/nenca No. 127, pp. 395-414 



86 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



.& ZIEGLER, W. 1979. Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (Conodonta): pro- 
posed designation of a type species under the plenary powers. Bull, 
zool. Norn. vol. 36, pp. 57—62 



PANDER, C.H. 1856. Monographic der fossUen Fische des silurischen Systems 

der russischen-baltischen Gouvemements. A^awer/.^lfcad. Wiss., pp. 1—94 
RABE, E.H. 1977. Zur Stratigraphie des ostandinen Raumes von Kolumbien. 

II. Conodonten des jiingeren Palaozoikum der Ostkordillere, Sierra 

Nevada de Santa Marta und der Serrania de Perija. Giessen. geol. Schrift. 

vol. 11, pp. 101-223 
REQUADT, H., BECKER, G. et al. 1977. Mikrofaunen aus dem Westfal der 

spanischen Westpyrenaen (Ostracoda, Conodonta, Foraminifera). N.J. 

Geol. Palont., Abh. vol. 155, pp. 65-107 
WANG, Z. 1978. Permian-Lower Triassic conodonts of the Liangshan area, 

southern Shaanxi. ylcra Palaeont. Sinica, vol. 17, pp. 213-229 
ZIEGLER, W. 1969. Fine neue Conodontenfauna aus dem hochsten Ober- 

devon. Fortschr. Geol. Rheinland und Westfalen, vol. 17, pp. 343-360 



(2) By H.R. Lane and W. Ziegler 

Dr. Kozur stated that he does not agree with our request to the Comm- 
ission concerning Gnathodus mosquensis, type species of the conodont genus 
Gnathodus, for the following reasons: 

1. The type material of Gnathodus mosquensis Pander, 1856 is from 
the Dorogomilov Horizon of Upper Carboniferous (Kasimovian Stage) and thus 
cannot be Lower Carboniferous in age. 

2. Streptognathodus cancellosus (GunneU) is the only species occurring 
in the Dorogomilov Horizon that is similar to Pander's illustrations of Gnatho- 
dus mosquensis and therefore probably is conspecific with the latter taxon. 

We are asking the Commission to exercise its plenary powers to set 
aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus 
Gnathodus Pander, 1856, and having done so, to designate Gnathodus 
texanus Roundy, to be the type species of that genus. We are proposing 
Gnathodus texanus Roundy (1926, p. 12, pi. II, figs. 7a-8b), not its 
junior secondary homonym Polygnathus texanus Roundy (1926, p. 14, pi. 
Ill, figs. 13a- 13b) to be the new type species. (The valid name for this latter 
species is Gnathodus bilineatus (Roundy, 1926) by the action of Hass, 1953, 
p. 79.) 

Our request is made in the interest of nomenclatural stability. The 
massive nomenclatural changes that will be necessary if a neotype is selected 
from the Kasimovian Stage wiU create much confusion in conodont paleonto- 
logy and stratigraphy. We asked the Commission to approve our request for the 
following reasons: 

1 . The morphologic details necessary for establishing the affinities of 
Gnathodus mosquensis Pander, 1856, type species by monotypy of the cono- 
dont genus Gnathodus, are unavailable. Attempts to establish these morpholo- 
gic details have been frustrated because: 

a. The primary types of the species are lost (Barskov, Alekseev & 

Goreva, 1977; 1978) and to our knowledge no specialist, other than 

the original author, has ever studied them. 



Bull. zool. Norn . , vol 3 8 , pt 2 , April 1981 87 



b. The primary types were probably embedded in rock in such a 
manner that the views available allowed, at best, a family level identi- 
fication. We suggest this based on Pander's original illustrations. 
2. The locus typicus and stratum typicum are unknown and will never 
confidently be determined. Thus, selection of a neotype from topotypic 
collections is impossible. 

Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva (1977, p. 132; 1978, p. 518) suggested 
that the type horizon of Gnathodus mosquensis was the Dprogomilov Horizon 
of the Kasimovian Stage (upper Upper Carboniferous in western European liter- 
ature and Upper Carboniferous in the Russian literature). This suggestion was 
based on their belief that the type collection derived from strata exposed at the 
Dorogomilovskaya Gate at the time of Pander's study. These beds are no longer 
exposed, being buried beneath the city of Moscow. However, geologic maps 
referred to by Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva (1977; 1978) show the gate to be 
located within the belt of land corresponding to the subcrop of the 
Dorogomilov Horizon. However, Pander (1856, p. 34, p. 83) clearly stated that 
the primary types came from behind the Dorogomilovskaya Gate. One may 
wonder how far past the gate Pander's stratum typicum was. This, of course, 
will never be known, but, certainly Pander's statement does not restrict the 
stratum typicum to within the Dorogomilov Horizon. For this reason, we 
question that the Dorogomilov Horizon contains the type horizon of Gnathodus 
mosquensis. 

Dr. Kozur misleads the reader when he states that Streptognathodus 
cancellosus is the only species occurring in the Dorogomilov Horizon that 
could be conspecific with Gnathodus mosquensis. Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva 
(1977, p. 133; 1978, p. 520) note that Streptognathodus excelsus Stauffer & 
Plummer occurs both above and below, but to date is not known to occur 
within the Dorogomilov Horizon. There is no reason why S. excelsus could not 
occur at that stratigraphic level. Streptognathodus excelsus, as well as S. cancel- 
losus and many other Lower and Upper Carboniferous conodonts, cannot be 
distinguished from Gnathodus mosquensis based on Pander's original descript- 
ion and illustrations. This problem is compounded by the uncertainty 
surrounding whether the Dorogomilov Horizon, in fact, contains the stratum 
typicum. 

The term 'horizon' is used in the Russian geological literature in 
approximately the same manner as 'formation' is used in western European 
and North American geological literature. Thus, the Dorogomilov Horizon is 
a sequence of rocks of substantial thickness, not just a planar surface as 
suggested by the EngHsh word. Because of this, reference to the Dorogomilov 
Horizon as being the 'stratum typicum^ may be misleading to the reader. 

It should also be noted here that the Upper Carboniferous of western 
Europe is divided into Middle and Upper Carboniferous in Russian literature. 
Kozur follows Russian practice, whereas we follow western European convent- 
ion. The Kasimovian Stage, for example, is Upper Carboniferous of Russian 
literature but would be upper Upper Carboniferous in western Europe. 

Dr. Kozur correctly points out that he had only provisionally treated 
Streptognathodus cancellosus as a junior synonym oi Gnathodus mosquensis. 
His provisional synonymy did not prevent him from treating all forms formerly 
assigned to Streptognathodus as belonging in Gnathodus (see Kozur & Mostler, 
1976), nor did it keep him from assigning all forms in the Lower Carbonifer- 



88 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



ous previously treated as Gnathodus to Dryphenotus Cooper (see Kozur & 
Mock, 1977). In addition, he has named at least two new species of Gnathodus 
that in the currently accepted taxonomy belong in Streptognathodus (see 
Kozur & Mostler, 1976). Thus, it seems to us that Dr. Kozur indeed has made 
up his mind, albeit on circumstantial evidence. It was also stated that the Lane 
& Ziegler (1979) proposal would produce a precedence against the rules of 
the ICZN. Provisions for our proposal are clearly included in Article 79 of the 
Code. The second sentence (p. 87, 1964 edition) of that article states: 'For 
the purpose of preventing such disturbance and of promoting a stable and 
universally accepted nomenclature, it (the Commission) may, under these 
plenary powers, annul or validate any name, type designation, or other pub- 
lished nomenclature act, or any publication, and vaMdate or establish replace- 
ments.' 

The following are our comments on Dr. Kozur's numbered points: 

1 . We agree with Dr. Kozur that a Lower Carboniferous age for the 
type collection of Gnathodus mosquensis is unlikely. This historical misin- 
terpretation of the stratum typicum of Gnathodus mosquensis stems from 
Pander's original statement that the primary types came from the lowest part 
of the Bergkalk (= Mountain Limestone of Lower Carboniferous age in 
England). We now know this to be almost certainly wrong. However, we do 
not agree with Dr. Kozur's unqualified acceptance of the Dorogomilov Horizon 
as the stratigraphic level of derivation of the primary types of Gnathodus. We 
believe that the correct horizon will never be known with certainty because 
Pander's original statement - behind the 'Dragomilowschen Sastawa' - is 
not sufficiently precise (see above discussion). This uncertainty casts much 
doubt that Streptognathodus cancellosus is in fact conspecific with Gnathodus 
mosquensis. 

2. Kozur takes exception to our statement that Gnathodus has always 
been considered dominantly Lower Carboniferous in age. By this we meant 
that the main evolutionary 'flowering' of Gnathodus took place in the Lower 
Carboniferous. The final members of the gnathodid lineage as interpreted in its 
broadest sense (= Gnathodus roundyi and Gnathodus dilatus — both assigned 
to Neognathodus in modem nomenclature) became extinct near the top of the 
Moscovian (Middle Carboniferous) (Kozitskaya, Kossenko, Lipniagov & Nem- 
irovskaya, 1978). StratigraphicaUy, this is a half a stage below the Dorogomilov 
Horizon. 

We do not believe that Dr. Kozur can demonstrate the great [Very 
high'] percentage of Upper Carboniferous (post-Moscovian) and Permian liter- 
ature giving occurrences of Gnathodus in its traditional sense. The Permian 
forms referred to by Dr. Kozur have never seriously been considered members 
of the genus Gnathodus by most conodont specialists. AH of the species of 
Middle Carboniferous into Permian Gnathodus listed by Kozur, except for 
Gnathodus whitei (Rhodes) and Gnathodus hanzhongensis Wang, are Middle 
Carboniferous in age and predate the Kasimovian. To our knowledge, Rabe 
(1977) is the only author to have placed the early Permian species Spathogna- 
thodus whitei Rhodes, 1963 in the genus Gnathodus. Kozur (1978, p. 104 
pi. 3, figs. 8, 9), himself, assigns it to Sweetognathus in conformity with 
the view of most modem conodont specialists. Gnathodus hanzhongensis 
Wang is clearly a representative of Sweetognathus and probably is the junior 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 89 



synonym of Sweetognathus merrilli Kozur. All of the other Middle Carbonif- 
erous species of Gnathodus listed by Dr. Kozur, although regarded as belong- 
ing under the umbrella of the gnathodid lineage, can be assigned to either 
Neognathodus Dunn or Declinognathodus Dunn. 

3. In Dr. Kozur's point about Gnathodus being used seven times for 
major subdivisions of the Pennsylvanian, the species utilized are the same 
as the ones mentioned in paragraph number 2 of his reply and all of them, 
except for those we noted, are Middle, not Upper Carboniferous in age and 
thus predate by at least one-half of a stage the Dorogomilov Horizon of the 
Kasimovian Stage. 

4. Again we agree with Dr. Kozur that Gnathodus has been used in 
both the Lower and Upper Carboniferous for stratigraphical subdivisions, but 
those used in the Upper Carboniferous have been reassigned to Neognathodus 
and Declinognathodus by most modem specialists. These Upper Carboniferous 
occurrences of the genus significantly predate the Kasimovian Stage, the stage 
from which the types of Gnathodus mosquensis are reported to have derived. 

In summary, we do not agree with Dr. Kozur because: 

1. The primary types of Gnathodus mosquensis are irretrievably lost. 

2. The morphologic detaOs necessary for its unequivocal identification 
are not, and never wiU be, available. 

3. Pander's original description of the locus typicus and stratum 
typicum are not precise enough for their confident determination. 

4. Traditional taxonomy of the gnathodids has centred around Lower, 
rather than Upper, Carboniferous forms. 

Therefore, in the interests of nomenclatural stability, we once again 
request that the Commission exercise its plenary powers provided for in 
Article 79 of the Code in order to void Gnathodus mosquensis Pander 1856 as 
the type species of the conodont genus Gnathodus and to designate the next 
younger species of the genus, Gnathodus texanus Roundy, 1926, as the new 
type species. 



REFERENCES 

BARSKOV, I.S., ALEKSEEV, A. & GOREVA, N.V. 1977. Taxonomic and 

nomenclatural status of the conodont genus Gnathodus Pander, 1856. 

Paleont. Zhurn., 1977, pp. 131-134. [In Russian] 
BARSKOV, I.S., ALEKSEEV, A. & GOREVA, N.V. 1978. The taxonomic 

and nomenclatural status of conodonts of the genus Gnathodus Pander, 

1856. A translation of Paleontological Journal. American Geol. Inst., 

Scripta Publishing Co., vol. 1 1, pp. 518-521 
HASS, W.H. 1953. Conodonts of the Bamett Formation of Texas. /'ro/. Papers 

U.S. Geol. Surv. No. 243-F, pp. 69-94 
KOZITSKAYA, R.I., KOSSENKO, Z.A., LIPNIAGOV, O.H. & 

NEMIROVSKAYA, T. I. 1978. Conodonts of the Carboniferous of the 

Donets basin. Naukova T>\xmks..Acad. Nauk. Ukr. pp. 1-120 
KOZUR, H. 1978. Beitraege zur Stratigraphie des Perms Teil II: Die Conodon- 

tenchronologie des Perms. Freiberger Forschungsheft C. 334, pp. 

85-161 



90 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



KOZUR, H. & MOCK, R. 1977. On the age of the Paleozoic of the Uppony 

Mountains (North Hungary). Acta. Miner. -Petrog. Szeged, vol. 23, pp. 

91-107 
KOZUR, H. & MOSTLER, H. 1976. Neue Conodonten aus dem Jungpalaeo- 

zoikum und der Trias. Geol. Palaeont. Mitt. Innsbruck. Bd. 5, pp. 1-33 
LANE, H.R. & ZIEGLER, W. 1979. Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (Conodonta: 

Proposed designation of a type species under the plenary powers. 

Z.N. (S) 2279. Bull. zool. Norn. vol. 36, pp. 57-62 
PANDER, C.H., 1856. Monographic der fossilen Fische des Silurischen Systems 

der Russisch-Baltischen Gouvemements. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss. pp. 1-91 
RABE, E.H. 1977. Zur stratigraphie des ostandien Raumes von Kolumbien. II, 

Conodonten des juengeren Palaeozoikum der Ostkordillere, Sierra 

Nevada de Santa Marta und der Serrania de Perija. Giessen. Geol. 

Schrift., vol. 11, pp. 101-223 
RHODES, F.H.T. 1963. Conodonts from the topmost Tensleep Sandstone of 

the eastern Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming. /. Paleont. vol. 37, pp. 401- 

408 
ROUNDY, P.V. 1926. Part II. The Micro-fauna in Roundy, P.V., Girty, G.H. & 

Goldman, N.I. Mississippian formations of San Saba County, Texas: 

Prof. Paper U.S. Geol. Surv. No. 146, pp. 5-23 



(3) By H. Kozur 

Lane & Ziegler now agree that the type species of Gnathodus, G. 
mosquensis Pander, 1856, must have come from the Upper Carboniferous and 
that species of Gnathodus have been used to denote stratigraphie subdivisions 
in both the Lower and Upper (Middle-Upper in the threefold classification) 
Carboniferous. 

Taking these points of agreement into account, as weU as the fact that 
at least as many post-Lower Carboniferous as Lower Carboniferous species 
have been originally described in Gnathodus, the choice of a Lower Carboni- 
ferous type species (as proposed by Lane & Ziegler) can never be in the interest 
of nomenclatural stability. This is the more true because all post-Lower Car- 
boniferous gnathodid genera are absent from the Lower Carboniferous, and 
all the Lower Carboniferous gnathodid genera are absent from later strata. 

If either a neotype were designated for G. mosquensis, or a new type 
species were fixed for Gnathodus, this taxon must occur in the Kasimovian 
(Upper Carboniferous) of the type area. The choice of a Lower Carboniferous 
type species would be contrary to the basic principles of the Code (Article 75). 

Lane & Ziegler have misinterpreted Pander's statement on the type 
horizon. He wrote '... der untersten Schichten des Bergkalks im Tulaschen und 
der hoheren des Moskauischen Gouvemements...'. As the holotype came from 
Moscow, there is no possible doubt that it came from the upper 'Bergkalk', 
which is clearly younger than the Lower Carboniferous. 

Whether the holotype was collected at the Dorogomilskaja Zastawa or 
beyond it, the age would still be Kasimovian (Upper Carboniferous). Pander 
would not have written 'beyond the Dragomilowschen Zastawa' (today the 
Dorogomilskaja Zastawa) if the locaHty were some tens of kilometers beyond 
it, but even then the type horizon would undoubtedly be post-Lower Carboni- 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 91 



ferous. Barskov er al.. 1977, have more experience of the geology of this area 

than Lane & Ziegler can have. 

Some of the arguments put forward by Lane & Ziegler are incorrect: 
(1)1 opposed their proposal because of four major mistakes in their 

argumentation. In fact, their second point, which was not included in those 

four, can also be used as an argument against their proposal. 

(2) Lane & Ziegler note that Streptognathodus excelsus is present both 
below and above the Dorogomilov Horizon, and could therefore be found by 
further studies also within that horizon. This is true; but it seems illogical to 
suppose that Pander, using the primitive methods of the mid-nineteenth 
century, could have found a species not detected until now by Soviet colleagues 
using modem methods of conodont extraction. On the other hand, the occur- 
rence of a different Streptognathodus species within the type formation of G. 
inosquensis would confirm my view that Streptognathodus is really a junior 
synonym of Gnathodus. 

(3) In my first comment on Lane & Ziegler's proposal I said '... the 
percentage of papers on Middle Carboniferous-to-Permian conodonts in which 
Gnathodus is mentioned is very high'. By this I meant to show that Lane & 
Ziegler's view that Gnathodus is used almost exclusively in the Lower Carboni- 
ferous hterature is incorrect. Gnathodus is mentioned in many post-Lower 
Carboniferous (Middle Carboniferous to Permian) papers. I did not say only 
Upper Carboniferous (i.e. post-Moscovian) as incorrectly quoted by Lane & 
Ziegler. There is no reason to choose a Lower Carboniferous type species for 
Gnathodus, instead of the Upper Carboniferous original type species. 

(4) Lane & Ziegler said that the Middle Carboniferous gnathodids 
predate the Upper Carboniferous Kasimovian (generally they include the 
Middle Carboniferous of East European authors in the Upper Carboniferous, 
following the American twofold division of the Carboniferous into 
Mississippian and Pennsylvanian). They did not say not only that these 
gnathodid species also postdate the Lower Carboniferous, but also that the 
Middle Carboniferous (Bashkirian, Moscovian) gnathodid species belong to 
quite different genera from all Lower Carboniferous gnathodids. On the other 
hand, all Middle Carboniferous genera that can be compared with G. 
mosquensis occur also in the Upper Carboniferous, at least in the Kasimovian. 
Lane & Ziegler propose a type species from a different geological age and a 
different species-group within the GNATHODIDAE than that represented by 
G. mosquensis. This cannot be in the interests of nomenclatural stability and 
would create a precedent against the basic principles of the Code (Article 75). 

(5) According to Lane & Ziegler, all the Gnathodus species mentioned 
in my first comment except for G. whitci (Rhodes) and G. hanzhongensis Wang 
are of Middle Carboniferous age, but in fact G. sicilianus Bender & Steppel and 
G. bucaramangus Rabe are Permian species. On the other hand, all the Middle 
Carboniferous species listed belong to genera that are absent from the Lower 
Carboniferous. 

In summary, Lane & Ziegler's proposal should be rejected for the 
foUowing reasons: 

(a) It is clear that Pander's type of G. mosquensis came from the 
Upper Bergkalk, which can never be of Lower Carboniferous age (including 
Serpukhovian = Lower Namurian). In the time interval of the Upper Bergkalk 
(maximum extent Moscovian to Sakmarian, but in the whole type area cleariy 



92 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



Upper Kasimovian) gnathodids are very frequent and many samples of that 
time interval from the type area yield only gnathodids and the component 
conodonts of the same apparatus. 

(b) The number of post-Lower Carboniferous species originally assigned 
to Gnathodus is at least as large as the number of Lower Carboniferous species. 
Both groups were used to denote stratigraphical subdivisions. 

(c) Both these groups of species originally placed in Gnathodus are now 
distributed among several genera. 

(d) All Lower Carboniferous (including Serpukhovian = Lower 
Namurian) gnathodid genera are absent in the post-Lower Carboniferous, and 
no post-Lower Carboniferous gnathodid genus is known in the Lower Carboni- 
ferous. Hence, if Gnathodus were defined by reference to a Lower Carbonifer- 
ous type species, as proposed by Lane & Ziegler, the genus would be quite 
different in age and taxonomic content from the original genus, and more 
than half the species originally proposed in Gnathodus (including the type 
species) would be excluded from the genus. 

(e) Nomenclatural stabUity would best be served by referring the Lower 
Carboniferous gnathodids to Dryphenotus Cooper, 1939, Paragnathodus 
Higgins, 1975, and Protognathodus Ziegler, 1969. None of these occurs in the 
Upper Bergkalk. 

(f) Whether a neotype is designated for G. mosquensis, or whether a 
new type species is designated for Gnathodus, that genus must be based on 
material of Kasimovian age. A new Lower Carboniferous type species would be 
contrary to the Code (see above). 

(4) By LS. Barskov (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, 
Maronovskii 26, 11 7049 Moscow V-49, USSR) 

Those participating in an All-Union meeting on Carboniferous cono- 
donts (Moscow, April 1 980) discussed Lane & Ziegler's proposal and new data 
provided by Alekseev on the type locality and horizon of Gnathodus 
mosquensis Pander, 1856. They examined new conodonts found at this locality 
and agreed that: 

(1) The problem of the present status of Gnathodus presents no threat 
to stability of conodont nomenclature. It can be solved by applying the Code 
without the use by the Commission of its plenary powers. 

(2) The basis of Lane & Ziegler's proposal is unsatisfactory: 

(a) frequency of use of a name in stratigraphic contexts is no basis 
for the use of the plenary powers. Normal taxonomic practice 
leads to frequent changes of generic names. Some Lower 
Carboniferous species first described in Gnathodus are now 
placed in other genera (Paragnathodus, Protognathodus, etc.). 
At least two genera (Dryphenotus Cooper, 1939 and 
Harltonodus Elias, 1961) exist for the group of species from 
which Lane & Ziegler have chosen the one that they propose 
as type species. There are no taxonomic reasons not to apply 
those names, which wUl undoubtedly be used in further taxo- 
nomic studies of Lower Carboniferous conodonts; 

(b) Lane & Ziegler's assertions of the uncertain type horizon of G. 
mosquensis are not quite correct. Further research will show 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 93 



either that it is possible to identify that species or the 
necessity to designate a neotype for it. This is a matter of time. 
The participants in the All-Union meeting decided to submit their 
arguments against Lane & Ziegler's proposal in the autumn of 1980. This paper 
is being prepared by Barskov and Alekseev and will be supported by all Soviet 
conodontologists. Meanwhile, Academician O.S. Vjalov and Drs Alekseev, 
Khalymbadzha, Kononova, Goreva and Starostina join me in asking the 
Commission to defer a decision on Lane & Ziegler's proposal. 

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 

INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

REGARDING ICHNOTAXA. Z.N.(S.)1973 

(see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 11-14; vol. 37, pp. 6-10) 

By G. Hahn (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universit'dtsgebiet Lahnberge, 
Marburg/Lahn, BRD) 

In Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 6-10 Drs Bromley and Fursich 
commented on the proposals to introduce rules governing names of ichnotaxa 
into the Code. They discuss all the aspects that are favourable to this proposal. 
Let me now make one or two adverse remarks. 

The first comment concerns the uniformity of zoological taxonomy. 
Up till now we have had only one taxonomy, applicable to all groups of 
animals, recent as well as fossil. Now we are discussing the introduction of 
ichnotaxa, and also of parataxa for special groups of fossils. If this tendency 
continues we shall perhaps end up with a special taxonomy for domestic 
animals, another for protozoa, others for ichnotaxa and parataxa, and so on. 
The Animal Kingdom will then be split into several taxonomically independent 
units and its homogeneity will be endangered. This is a very real apprehension: 
Bromley & Fursich at the end of their comment unequivocally demand the 
independence of ichnotaxonomy from 'orthotaxonomy', the two not 
competing in priority. 

Secondly, we do not have exact definitions for either ichnotaxa or 
parataxa. What will be the status of the impression of a fossil medusa in future? 
Is it an impression of a normal fossil (thus entering into 'orthotaxonomy') or is 
it a resting trace (thus entering into ichnotaxonomy)? Some specialists will 
prefer the first interpretation, others perhaps the second one. The introduction 
of ichnotaxa and parataxa will thus not help to stabilise nomenclature but the 
reverse. Uncertainty as to which taxonomy to use will endanger the uniformity 
of our taxonomic base. I should therefore prefer to renounce the attempt to 
regulate ichnotaxonomy and parataxonomy by the Code. If this cannot be 
achieved, we should at least try to preserve the priority of 'orthotaxonomy' 
over ichnotaxonomy and parataxonomy. 

Reply by the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

Professor Hahn's disquiet at the proposals concerning ichnonomen- 
clature and paranomenclature is understandable. The Commission must, how- 
ever, face the fact that parallel taxonomies, reflected in parallel nomenclatures, 



94 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



exist in a number of groups where particular parts or organs can be classified 
and named, but where there is a mismatch between their taxonomy and 
nomenclature on the one hand, and the 'orthotaxonomy' and 'orthonomen- 
clature' of the animals themselves. The Code at present provides for these 
cases, not on a general basis or group by group, but name by name: the Law of 
Priority applies where a part of an animal, or (before 1931) the work of an 
animal is named before the animal itself. But if a given part or a given work 
relates indiscriminately to several 'orthotaxa', then, even though that part or 
work can be classified only in its own taxonomy, its name must either be 
forced into the nomenclature of the animals themselves (even though it cannot 
be known to which of several species or genera it corresponds), or it must take 
the name of some species or genus of animals given an equal state of ignorance. 
This is insupportable on both logical and pragmatic grounds. 

The Commission's proposals therefore seek to deal with a situation that 
already exists (and, in the case of paranomenclature, since long before the 
1905 Regies were written); they seek to remove the anomaly whereby names 
proposed in ichnonomenclature before 1931 are available, but not those pro- 
posed after 1930; and they seek to provide orderly channels of communication 
between specialists using these nomenclatures and those using 'orthonomen- 
clature'. They should also help the scientist who has to use all three (or any 
two of them) in particular areas of his work. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 95 



OPINION 1 170 

SATURNIIDAE BOISDUVAL. 1837 (LEPIDOPTERA) PLACED 
ON OFFICIAL LIST 

RULING. - (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled 
that the specific name pyri [Denis & Schiffermliller] , 1775, as pub- 
lished in the binomen Bombyx pyri, is to be given nomenclatural 
precedence over the specific name major Linnaeus, 1758, as 
pubhshed in the combination Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia major 
whenever the two names are considered as synonyms. 

(2) The generic name Satumia Schrank, 1802 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Grote, 1895, 
Bombyx pyri [Denis & Schiffermiiller] , 1775, is hereby placed on 
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name 
Number 2111. 

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the endorsements 
and Name Numbers specified: 

(a) pyri [Denis & Schiffenniiller] . 1775, as published 
in the binomen Bombyx pyri, ruled under the 
plenary powers in ( 1 ) above to have nomenclatural 
precedence over the specific name major Linnaeus, 
1758, as published in the combination Phalaena 
(Bombyx) pavonia major, whenever the two names 
are regarded as synonyms (Name Number 2727). 

(b) major Linnaeus. 1758. as pubhshed in the combin- 
ation Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia major, ruled by 
the decision taken under the plenary powers in ( 1 ) 
above as not to be used in place of the specific name 
pyri [Denis & Schiffen-niiller] , 1 775, as published in 
the binomen Bombyx pyri, whenever the two names 
are regarded as synonyms (Name Number 2728). 

(4) The family name SATURNIIDAE Boisduval, 1 837 (type 
genus, Satumia Schrank, 1802) is hereby placed on the Official List 
of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 507. 

(5) The entry for Name Number 142 on the Official List 
of Family-Group Names in Zoology (ATTACIDAE) is to be 
amended as follows: for 'Burmeister, 1878' read 'Duponchel, 1844'. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1997 

An application for the reinstatement of SATURNIIDAE as 

the name for the family containing the two subfamilies 

SATURNIINAE and ATTACINAE was first received from Dr. C.W. 

Sabrosky and Dr. D.C. Ferguson {Systematic Entomology 



96 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



Laboratory USDA, Washington B.C. 20560) on 28 February 1972. 
After some correspondence, it was sent to the printer on 16 May 
1975 and published on 22 September 1975 in Bull zool. Nom. 
vol. 32, pp. 149-152. No use of the plenary powers was involved. 
The proposed type-species designation for Saturnia was criticised 
by Nye, Fletcher & Watson, Bull, zool Nom. vol. 33, pp. 137-139, 
and the whole apphcation was opposed by Lemaire {ibid., 
pp. 139-142). A further comment by Dr R.S. Peigler {Texas A &M 
University) on the type-species designation {Bull zool Nom. vol. 
35, p. 7) was supported by Monsieur Lemaire {ibid. pp. 7-8) and 
answered by Nye, Fletcher & Watson {ibid., pp. 8-9). No other 
comments were received, but Dr Sabrosky exercised his right of 
reply to Monsieur Lemaire in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 199. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 
On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule for Voting Paper 
(1980)4 either (A) for the original proposals set out in Bull zool 
Nom., vol. 32, p. 152, or (B) for the revised proposals set out in 
Bull, zool Nom., vol 35, pp. 8-9. At the close of the voting period 
on 9 July 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: 

For Alternative A - five (5) votes: Starobogatov, Alvarado, 

Tortonese, Welch, Dupuis 
For Alternative B - eighteen (18) votes received in the 
following order: 

Melville, Holthuis, Yokes, Coriiss, Brinck, 
Trjapitzin, Willink, Mroczkowski, Bayer, 
Kraus, Hahn, Sabrosky, Habe, Halvorsen, 
Nye, Binder, Cogger, Bemardi 
No voting papers were returned by Heppell and Ride. 
The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Bayer: 'Although it clearly is not called for in this case, no 
provision is made for a "nay" vote on this voting paper. It seems to 
me that such provision should be made as a matter of course.' 

Dupuis: 'II est inexact de dire qu'il faille choisir entre les 
propositions originates et celles de Nye et al. II y a aussi une 
troisieme possibilite: laisser les choses en I'etat. En fait je considere 
que Ton doit revoir I'Opinion 450 au meme titre que toutes les 
autres Opinions qui apparaissent a un moment ou a un autre mal 
fondees. Je vote pour la proposition Sabrosky et Ferguson.' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 
The following are the original references for names placed on 
Official Lists and for a name whose entry on the Official List is 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1 98 1 97 



corrected by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
ATTACIDAE Duponchel, 1844, Catalogue methodique des 

Lepidopteres d 'Europe (Paris, C. Renard), p. 78 
major, Phalaena (Bombyx) pavonia, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst Nat 

ed. 10, vol. l,p. 497 
pyri, Bombyx, [Denis & Schiffermuller] , MIS, Ankundung [sic] 

eines systematischen Werkes von den Schmetterlinge der 

Wiener Gegend, p. 49 
Saturnia Schrank, 1802, Fauna Boica (Ingolstadt, Kriill) p 149 
SATURNIIDAE Boisduval, 1837, Icones historiques des 

Lepidopteres nouveaux ou peu connus Paris, Roret), p. 1 70. 

The following is the reference to a type-species designation 
accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Bombyx puri 
Denis &. Schiffermuller] , 1 775 as type species of Saturnia Schrank, 
1802, by Grote, 1895, Canadian Entomol, vol. 27, p. 267. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on voting paper (80)4 
were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in 
Alternative B of that voting paper have been duly adopted, and that 
the decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1 170. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
8 September 1980 



98 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



OPINION 1171 

THE STEM OF THE GENERIC NAME PETROMYZON 
LINNAEUS, 1 758 (PISCES) IS PETROMYZONT- 

RULING.— (1) It is hereby ruled that the stem of the generic 
name Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758, for the purposes of Article 29 
is PETROMYZONT-. 

(2) The generic rvdime Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: 
masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Jordan & 
Copeland, 1877, Petromyzon marinus Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 2112. 

(3) The specific name marinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published 
in the binomen Petromyzon marinus (specific name of type species 
of Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2729. 

(4) The family name PETROMYZONTIDAE Bonaparte, 
1832 (type genus, Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed 
on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 508. 



HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2045 
An appUcation for the determination of the correct spelling 
of the family name for the Holarctic lampreys - whether 
PETROMYZONIDAE or PETROMYZONTIDAE - was first 
received from Professor V.D. Vladykov {University of Ottawa) on 
21 February 1973. After some correspondence, it was sent to the 
printer on 24 October 1973 and published on 28 June 1974 in 
Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30, pp. 198-199. No use of the plenary 
powers was requested. 

The late Dr Carl Hubbs {Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 18-19) 
and Dr C.G. Gruchy {National Museum of Natural Sciences, 
Ottawa) supported PETROMYZON- {ibid. pp. 19-20). Vladykov 
& Gruchy {ibid. pp. 154-155) asked for a ruling in that sense. 
Steyskal, however {ibid. p. 21) supported PETROMYZONT-, 
and Morrow {ibid. p. 200) showed that this is the correct form 
under the Code. Follett & Dempster {Bull, zool Nom. vol. 33, 
p. 142) and Robins {ibid. pp. 142-143) showed that usage strongly 
favours PETROMYZONT-. In addition, Follett & Dempster 
provided correct references for the subsequent designation of a 
types species iox Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758 and for the family 
name itself. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 99 



DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 
On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)5 either for PETROMYZON- or for PETROMYZONT- as 
the stem of the family-group name based on Petromyzon Linnaeus, 
1758. It was pointed out that the adoption of the former would 
require a two-thirds majority vote, whereas the adoption of the 
latter required only a simple majority. At the close of the voting 
pariod on 9 July 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: 

For PETROMYZON- four (4): Brinck, Trjapitzin, Habe, Nye 
For PETROMYZONT- eighteen (18) received in the follow- 
ing order: Melville, Holthuis, Yokes, 
Corliss, WilUnk, Mroczkowski, Bayer, 
Kraus, Hahn, Starobogatov, 

Sabrosky, Halvorsen, Alvarado, 
Binder, Cogger, Dupuis, Tortonese, 
Welch 
No voting papers were returned by Heppel and Ride. 
Professor Hahn pointed out that PETROMYZONT- is clearly 
supported by F.C. Werner in 'Wortelemente lateinisch-griechischer 
Fachausdriicke in den biologischen Wissenschaften'. 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for the names placed 
on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
marinus, Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, 

p. 230 
Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758, ^j^^^ Nat. ed. 10, vol. I, p. 230 
PETROMYZONTIDAE Bonaparte, 1832, Saggio d'una distribuzione 

metodica degh animali vertebrati a sangue freddo. Giorn. 

Arcadica, vol. 52, pp. 165, 189 



CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)5 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposal contained in Alternative B on that 
voting paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, 
being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1171. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
12 September 1980 



100 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



OPINION 1172 

ASCIDIA INTESTINALIS LINNAEUS, 1767 (TUNICATA) 
CONSERVED 

RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name 
sociabile Gunnems, 1765, as published in the binomen Tethyum 
sociabile, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of 
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. 

(2) The generic name Ciona Fleming, 1822 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by monotypy, Ascidia intestinalis Linnaeus, 
1767, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2113. 

(3) The specific name intestinalis Linnaeus, 1767, as 
published in the hinomQn Ascidia intestinalis (specific name of type 
species of Ciona Fleming, 1822) is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2730. 

(4) The specific name sociabile Gunnerus, 1765, as 
published in the binomen Tethyum sociabile, and as suppressed 
under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the 
Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Specific Names in Zoology 
with the Name Number 1074. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2087 
An application for the conservation of Ascidia intestinalis 
Linnaeus, 1767 (the type species of the well-known ascidian genus 
Ciona Fleming, 1822) was first received from Dr Jon-Arne Sneling 
and Dr Bjorn GuUiksen (Biologisk Stasjon, Trondheim, N-7001, 
Norway) on 1 August 1974. After some correspondence it was 
sent to the printer on 19 November 1974 and published on 27 June 
1975 in Bull. zool. Norn. vol. 32, pp. 127-128. Public notice of the 
possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the 
Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and six general serials. 
No comment was received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 
On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
1980(6) for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. 
vol. 32, p. 127. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1980 
the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes - twenty-two (22) received in the follow- 
ing order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, 
WilUnk, Mroczkowski, Heppell, Bayer, Kraus, Hahn, Starobogatov, 
Habe, Halvorsen, Nye, Alvarado, Binder, Cogger, Dupuis, 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 101 



Tortonese, Welch 

Negative Vote — Sabrosky 

No voting papers were returned by Bernadi and Ride. 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruUng given in the 
present Opinion: 
Ciona Fleming, 1822, The philosophy of zoology (Edinburgh), 

p. 512 
intestinalis, Ascidia, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae ed. 12, 

vol. 1 (2), p. 1087 
sociabile, Tethyum, Gunnerus, \16S,K. norske Vidensk. Selsk. Skr., 

vol. 3, pp. 81-102 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)6 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper 
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the 
decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1 1 72. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
12 September 1980 



102 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



OPINION 1173 

THE TYPE SPECIES OF HILTERMANNICYTHERE BASSIOUNI, 

1 970 (CRUSTACEA, OSTRACODA) IS CYTHEREIS 

TURBIDA MULLER, 1894 

RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of 
type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Hiltermannicy there 
Bassiouni, 1970, are hereby set aside and the nominal species 
Cythereis turbida G.W. Miiller, 1894, is hereby designated as type 
species of that genus. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) Hilt ermannicy there Bassiouni, 1970 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by designation under the 
plenary powers in (1) above, Cythereis turbida 
G.W. Miiller, 1894 (Name Number 21 14); 

(b) Celtia Neale, 1973 (gender: feminine), type species, 
by original designation, Cy there quadridentata 
Baird, 1850 (Name Number 2115). 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified : 

(a) turbida G.F. Miiller, 1894, as pubUshed in the 
binomen Cythereis turbida (specific name of type 
species of Hilt ermannicy there Bassiouni, 1970) 
(Name Number 2731); 

{h) quadridentata Baird, 1850, as published in the 
binomen Cythere quadridentata (specific name of 
type species of Celtia Neale, 1973 (Name Number 
2732). 



HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2089 
An appUcation for a ruling on the type species of the nominal 
genus Hilt ermannicy there Bassiouni, 1970 was first received from 
the late Professor P.C. Sylvester-Bradley (in his own name together 
with those of Dr M. A. Bassiouni and Dr J. W. Neale) on 25 
September 1974. It was sent to the printer on 19 November 1974 
and published on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol 32, 
pp. 161-162. PubUc notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials and to five general serials and one speciaUsed 



Bull. zoo/. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 103 



serial. The application was supported by Dr R.H. Bate {British 
Museum, Natural History, London). No adverse comment was 
received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)7 for or against the proposals set out in Bull, zool Norn. 
vol. 32, p. 1 6 1 . At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1 980 the 
state ot the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes - twenty-three (23) received in the 
following order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, 
Trjapitzin, WiUink, Mroczkowski, Heppell, Bayer, Kraus, 
Starobogatov, Habe, Sabrosky, Nye, Halvorsen, Alvarado, Binder, 
Cogger, Dupuis, Tortonese, Welch, Bemardi 

Negative Vote — Hahn 

No voting paper was returned by Ride. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Hahn; 'I cannot see a serious reason to change the type 
species of Hilt ermannicy there. In 1973 H. quadridentata was 
unequivocally the type species of that genus. To propose a new 
genus on the same species, knowing this fact, as apparently done by 
Neale, is unjustifiable nomenclaturally. Such an act should not 
be legalised afterwards by the Commission. I therefore vote against 
this application.' 

Dupuis: 'J'ai I'habitude de voter "pour" dans tous les cas 
d'espece-type mal identifiee. Dans le cas particulier, je vote de la 
meme maniere, tout en deplorant la longueur de nom 
Hilt ermannicy there que Ton aurait pu proposer de faire disparaitre.' 

Bemardi: ' "For", puisque les quadridentata qui etaient sous 
les yeux de Bassiouni en 1970 etaient en reahte des turbida. Pour 
cette fois, excellente intervention de la Commission pour retablir 
la reahte.' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for the names 
placed on Official Lists by the ruhng given in the present Opinion: 
Celtia Neale, 1973, Rev. espanola Micropaleontol. vol. 5, p. 436 
Hiltermannicy there Bassiouni, \910, Rev. espanola Micropaleontol. 

vol. 3, p. 121 
quadridentata. Cythere, Baird, 1850, The natural history of British 

Entomostraca London, Ray Society), p. 173 
turbida, Cythereis. G.F. Miiller, 1894, Fauna und Flora des Golfes 

vonNeapel, Monogr. 21, pp. 371, 372. 



1 04 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)7 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper 
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and the decision 
so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 
No. 1173. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
15 September 1980 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 105 



OPINION 1 1 74 
THE TYPE SPECIES OF ATRACTOCERA MEIGEN, 1803 
(DIPTERA) IS TIPULA REGELATIONIS LINAEUS, 1758 

RULING. — (1) The type species of the nominal genus 
Atractocera Meigen, 1803 (gender: feminine) is Tipula regelationis 
Linnaeus, 1 758. 

(2) Since, as a result of the ruling given in (1) above, the 
generic name Atractocera becomes, in the current state of taxonomic 
knowledge, invalid as a junior synonym of TV/c^ocera Meigen, 1803, 
it is not placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The specific name regelationis Linnaeus, 1758, as 
published in the binomen Tipula regelationis (specific name of type 
species of Atractocera Meigen, 1803), is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
2733. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2092 

An application for the determination of the type species of 
Atractocera Meigen, 1803, formed part of an appUcation first 
received from Professor Brinck on behalf of Dr Christine Dahl on 
20 October 1960 and published in 1961 {Bull. zool. Norn. vol. 18, 
pp. 203-205, Z.N.(S.)1407). It was extracted from that file and 
treated separately because it became clear that Atractocera is a 
genus based on a misidentifled type species, and that the name 
could be dealt with independently of the more complex issues in 
the original appUcation affecting the generic name Trichocera 
Meigen, 1803. 

The separate appUcation cor\ctrmng Atractocera was sent to 
the printer on 19 November 1974 and published on 27 March 1975 
in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 43-44. No use ofthe plenary powers 
was involved. 

Dr Dahl, acting as first reviser in her appUcation, stated that 
Trichocera and Atractocera are currently treated as synonyms, and 
selected Trichocera as the vaUd name. She also asked that the 
provisions of Article 70a(iii) be applied; these do not require the 
use of the plenary powers. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISION 

On 9 April 1980 the members ofthe Commission were invited 
to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)8 for 
or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p.44. At 
the close of the voting period on 9 July 1 980 the state of the voting 



1 06 Bull. zool. Norn . , vol 3 8 , pt 2 , April 1981 



was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Yokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, Willink, 
Mroczkowski, Bayer, Hahn, Kraus, Starobogatov, Habe, Sabrosky, 
Nye, Halvorsen, Alvarado, Binder, Dupuis, Tortonese 

Negative Vote — Welch 

Abstention — Cogger 

No votes were returned by Bemardi, Heppell and Ride. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Hahn: This proposal will not only avoid confusion with 
Odagmia, but also with Atractocerus (Coleoptera, 
LYMEXYLONIDAE).' 

Cogger: 'In my view the submission is inadequate. The vital 
question of what decision would "...best serve stability and uni- 
formity of nomenclature", Art. 70a, is addressed only superficially 
and without substantive supporting evidence from the literature. 
Consequently I abstain from voting.' 



ORIGINAL REFERENCE 

The following is the original reference for a name placed on 
an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
regelationis, Tipula, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, Vol. 1, 
p. 587. 



CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)8 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has 
been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the 
decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1 1 74. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
15 September 1980 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 107 



OPINION 1 1 75 

MONSTRILLA INTERMEDIA KRICZAGIN, 1877 (COPEPODA) 

SUPPRESSED 

RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name 
intermedia Kriczagin, 1877, as published in the hxnomQn Monstrilla 
intermedia is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of 
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers speci- 
fied: 

(a) grandis Giesbrecht, 1891, as pubhshed in the bino- 
men Monstrilla grandis (Name Number 2734); 

(b) longicomis Thompson, 1890, as pubhshed in the 
binomen Monstrilla longicornis (Name Number 
2735). 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invahd Specific Names in Zoology with the 
Name Numbers specified: 

(a) intermedia Kriczagin, 1877, as published in the 
binomen Monstrilla intermedia, and as suppressed 
under the plenary powers in (1) above (Name 
Number 1075); 

{h) intermedia Aurivillius, 1898, as pubhshed in the 
binomen Monstrilla intermedia, a junior primary 
homonym of Monstrilla intermedia Kriczagin, 
1877 (Name Number 1076). 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2098 

An appUcation for the conservation of Monstrilla grandis 
Giesbrecht, 1891 was first received from Dr M.J. Isaac (University 
College of Swansea, U.K.) on 19 November 1974. After some 
correspondence it was sent to the printer on 16 May 1975 and 
pubhshed on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, 
pp. 171-172. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as 
well as to the statutory serials and to five general and one speciahsed 
serial. No comment was received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)9 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. 



108 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



vol. 32, p. 171. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1980 
the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Yokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, 
Mroczkowski, Bayer, Hahn, Starobogatov, Habe, Halvorsen, 
Alvarado, Binder, Cogger, Tortonese, Welch 

Negative Votes — six (6): Willink, Kraus, Sabrosky, Nye, 
Dupuis, Bemardi 

No voting papers were returned by Heppell and Ride. 

The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Willink: 'In this special case I don't think it will cause too 
many problems to start to use again the first name given to the 
species.' 

Kraus: 'There is no statement by the apphcant indicating that 
the species in question has a more general importance.' 

Nye: 'Although I would agree to granting M. grandis nomen- 
clatural precedence over A/, intermedia if the two names are appUed 
to the same taxon, I am not convinced that the senior name should 
be unconditionally suppressed.' 

Bemardi: 'Ces Copepodes n'ont, je suppose, aucun inte'ret 
e'conomique. II est done bien inutile d'officiaUser I'erreur nomen- 
clatorique de Dolpogolskaya, 1948, puisque, par ailleurs, elle a 
montre que M. grandis est un synonyme plus re'cent de M. inter- 
media Kriczagin. D'autre part, I'existence de deux homonymes 
(intermedia Kriczagin et intermedia Aurivillius) ne constitue 
aucunement une source de confusion, puisque /«/ermeG?/a Aurivillius 
n'est pas employe, e'tant un synonyme plus recent de longicornis. 
L'intervention de la Commission est ici bien inutile.' 



ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for names placed on 
an Official List and an Official Index by the ruHng given in the 
present Opinion: 
grandis, Monstrilla, Giesbrecht, 1891, Atti Accad.naz. Lincei, 

Rendiconti, vol. 7, Sem. 1 , p. 476 
intermedia, Monstrilla, Aurivillius, 1898, K. svenska Vetensk. Akad. 

Handl vol. 30, pp. 39-40 
intermedia, Monstrilla, Kriczagin, 1877, Zap. kiev. Obshsch. Estest., 

vol. 5, pp. 17-21 
longicornis, Monstrilla, J.C. Thompson, 1 890, Proc. Trans. Liverpool 

biol. Soc. vol. 4, p. 119. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 109 



CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)9 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision 
so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 
No. 1175. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
16 September 1980 



110 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



OPINION 1 1 76 

ECHIS COLORATA [SIC] GUENTHER, 1878 (REPTILIA, 

SERPENTES) GIVEN NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE 

OVER ECHIS FROENATA [SIC] DUMERIL, BIBRON & 

DUMERIL, 1854 

RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled 
that the specific name colorata Guenther, 1878, as published in the 
binomen Echis colorata [sic] , is to be given nomenclatural preced- 
ence over the specific name froenata Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 
1854, as published in the h'momtn Echis froenata [sic] whenever 
the two names are considered synonyms. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the endorsements and 
Name Numbers specified: 

(a) colorata Guenther, 1878, as published in the bino- 
men Echis colorata [sic] , with the endorsement 
given under the plenary powers in (1) above (Name 
Number 2736); 

(b) froenata Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854, as pub- 
lished in the binomen Echis froenata [sic] with an 
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over 
Echis colorata Guenther, 1878, whenever the two 
names are considered synonyms (Name Number 
2737). 



HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2064 

An application for the conservation of Echis coloratus 
Guenther, 1878 (first pubhshed as E. colorata) was first received 
from Mr A. Stimson {British Museum (Natural History), London) 
on 28 February 1974. It was sent to the printer on 5 April 1974 
and published on 31 December 1974 in Bull, zool Nom. vol. 31, 
pp. 223-224. Public notice of the possible useof the plenary powers 
was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statu- 
tory serials and to two herpetological serials. The apphcation was 
supported by Professor Hobart M. Smith (University of Colorado) 
and criticised by Professor Ernst Mayr {Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, 
p. 199). 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 111 



DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)10 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. 
vol. 31, pp. 223-224. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 
1980 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — seventeen ( 1 7) received in the following 
order: Melville, Vokes, Corhss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, WiUink, 
Mroczkowski, Bayer, Hahn, Starobogatov, Habe, Halvorsen, Nye, 
Binder, Cogger, Tortonese, Welch 

Negative Votes - five (5): Holthuis, Kraus, Sabrosky, 
Alvardo, Dupuis 

No voting papers were returned by Bernard!, Heppell and 
Ride. 



ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for the names 
placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion : 
colomta, Echis, Guenther, 1 878, /*roc. zool. Sac. London for 1878, 

P-977 
froenata, Echis, Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854, Erpetologie 

g^nerale, ou histoire naturelle complete des reptiles, vol. 7, 

p. 1449. 



CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on voting paper (80)10 
were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting 
paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that 
the decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1 1 76. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
16 September 1980 



112 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



OPINION 1 1 77 

COSSMANNELLA MAYER-EYMAR, 1 896 (MOLLUSCA, 
BIVALVIA) DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES 

RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of 
type species for the nominal genus Cossmannella Mayer-Eymar, 
1896 hitherto made are hereby set aside and the nominal species 
Cardita fajumensis Oppenheim, 1903 is designated as type species 
of that genus. 

(2) The generic name Cossmannella Mayer-Eymar, 1896 
(gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary 
powers in (1) above, Cardita fajumensis Oppenheim, 1903 is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 2116. 

(3) The specific name fajumensis Oppenheim, 1903, as 
pubhshed in the binomen Cardita fajumensis (specific name of 
type species of Cossmannella Mayer-Eymar, 1896) is hereby placed 
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name 
Number 2738. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2I06 
An apphcation for the use of plenary powers to designate 
a type species for the genus Cossmannella Mayer-Eymar, 1896 was 
first received from Dr Amin Strougo (Universite de Paris-Orsay) on 
16 December 1974. After some correspondence it was sent to the 
printer on 16 May 1975 and published on 22 September 1975 in 
Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 173-174. Public notice of the possible 
use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin 
as well as to the statutory serials and to five general and three 
speciaUsed serials. No comment was received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE 

On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)11 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. 
vol. 32, pp. 173-174. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 
1980 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-three (23) received in the 
following order: Melville. Holthuis, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, 
Tijapitzin, Willink,Mroczkowski, Bayer, Kraus, Hahn, Starobogatov, 
Habe, Sabrosky, Halvorsen, Nye, Alvarado, Binder, C!ogger, Dupuis, 
Tortonese, Welch, Bemardi 

Negative Votes - none (0) 

No voting papers were returned by Heppell and Ride. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 113 



Bernard! commented 'Meme remarque que pour I'espece- 
type de Hiltermannicythere (Opinion 1 173).' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for the names placed 
on Official Lists by the ruUng given in the present Opinion: 
Cossmannella Mayer-Eymar, 1896, / Conchyliol. vol. 44, p. 366 
fajumensis, Cardita, Oppenheim, 1903, Palaeontographica vol. 30, 

Abt. 3,Heft 1-2, p. 105. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)1 1 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper 
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the 
decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1 177. 

R. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commision on Zoological Nomenclature 

16 September 1980 



1 14 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



OPINION 1 1 78 

MEGASTERNUM MULSANT, 1844. AND CRYPTOPLEURUM 

MULSANT, 1844 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA) : TYPE 

SPECIES DETERMINED 

RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of 

type species hitherto made for the nominal genera Megastemum 

Mulsant, 1844 and Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 are set aside, and 

(a) Dermestes obscurus Marsham, 1802 is hereby 

designated as type species of Megastemum Mulsant, 

1844; 

(h) Sphaeridium minutum Fabricius, 1775 is hereby 

designated as type species of Cryptopleurum 

Mulsant, 1844. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) Megastemum Mulsant, 1844 (gender, neuter), type 
species, by designation under the plenary powers in 
(l)(a) above, Dermestes obscurus Marsham, 1802 
(Name Number 2117); 

ih) Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 (gender, neuter), 
type species, by designation under the plenary 
powers in (l)(b) above, Sphaeridium minutum 
Fabricius, 1775 (Name Number 2118). 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) obscurus Marsham, 1802, as published in the 
binomen Dermestes obscurus (specific name of type 
species of Megastemum Mulsant, 1844) (Name 
Number 2739); 

(b) minutum Fabricius, 1775, as published in the 
binomen Sphaeridium minutum (specific name of 
type species of Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 
(Name Number 2740). 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2075 
An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate 
type species for the genera Megastemum Mulsant, 1844 and 
Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 was first received from Dr A. 
Smetana {Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada) on 
20 June 1974. It was sent to the printer on 27 August 1974 and 
published on 31 December 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 115 



pp. 244-246. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well 
as to the statutory serials and to seven entomological serials. Apart 
from a request by the late Dr. H. Lemche that a separate vote be 
called for on each nominal genus, no comment was received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 14 December 1979 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1979)27 for or against the proposals set out in Bull zool Nom. 
vol. 31, p. 245, (a) concerning Megasternum Mulsant, 1844, and 
(b) concerning Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844. At the close of the 
voting period on 14 March 1980 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes (for both (a) and (b)) - twenty-three (23) 
received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Bayer, 
Mroczkowski, WilHnk, Vokes, Corhss, Tortonese, Trjapitzin, 
Alvarado, Brinck, Hahn, Habe, Heppell, Welch, Starobogatov, 
Sabrosky, Ride, Kraus, Dupuis, Nye, Halvorsen, Binder 

Negative Votes - none (0) 

Abstention - Cogger 

No voting paper was returned by Bernardi. 

Dr Cogger observed: 'I abstain from voting on both proposals. 
The questions of stability and usage are addressed superficially, 
without any supporting evidence beyond broad, unsubstantiated 
statements.' Professor Brinck suggested that the type oi Dermestes 
obscurus Marsham, 1802 should be checked. Mr M.E. Bacchus 
{British Museum, Natural History) kindly did so and found two 
Marsham specimens. One, labelled "holotype" by Balfour-Browne 
(see Entomol mon. Mag., vol. 75, 1939, p. 5) should presumably 
be regarded as the lectotype. Both specimens belong to the species 
currently known as Megasternum obscurum (Marsham, 1802). 



ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for the names 
placed on Official Lists by the ruhng given in the present Opinion: 
Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844, Hist. nat. coleopteres de France, 

Palpicornes, p. 1 88 
Megasternum Mulsant, 1844, Hist. nat. coleopteres de France, 

Palpicornes, p. 1 87 
minutum, Sphaeridium, Fabricius, 5'>'5^ Entomol, p. 68 
obscurus, Dermestes, Marsham, 1802, Entomol. Britannica, I. 

Coleoptera, p. 72. 



116 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)27 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper 
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the 
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commiss- 
ion on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present 
Opinion No. 1178. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
17 September 1980 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 117 



OPINION 1179 

POL YDR USUS GERMAR, 1817 AND PHYLLOBIUS 

GERMAR, 1824 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): CONSERVED 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT USAGE 

RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations 
of type species made for the nominal genus Polydrusus Germar, 
1817, prior to the designation oi Curculio undatus Fabricius, 1781, 
by Schonherr, 1826, are hereby set aside and that designation is 
accepted. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) Polydrusus Germar, 1817 (gender: masculine), type 
species, by subsequent designation by Schonherr, 
1826 as accepted under the plenary powers in (1) 
above, Curculio undatus Fabricius, 1781 (Name 
Number 21 19); 

(h) Phyllobius Germar, 1824 (gender: masculine), type 
species, by subsequent designation by Schonherr, 
1826, Curculio pyri Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 
2120). 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified : 

(a) undatus Fabricius, 1781, as published in the 
binomen Curculio undatus (specific name of type 
species of Polydrusus Germar, 1817) (Name Number 
2741); 

(h) pyri Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen 
* Curculio pyri (specific name of type species of 
Phyllobius Germar, 1 824 (Name Number 2742). 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) POLYDROSINI (correction of "Polydrosides") 
Schonherr, 1823 (type genus Poly drosus Schonherr, 
1826, an unjustified emendation of Polydrusus 
Germar, 1817) (Name Number 509); 

(b) PHYLLOBIINI (correction of "Phyllobides") 
Schonherr, 1826 (type genus, Phyllobius Germar, 
1 824) (Name Number 5 1 0). 



118 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2107 
An application for the use of the plenary powers to maintain 
current usage of the generic names Polydrusus Germar, 1817 and 
Phyllobius Germar, 1824 was first received from Dr R.T. Thompson 
{British Museum, Natural History) on 19 December 1974. It was 
sent to the printer on 16 May 1975 and published on 22 September 
1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 175-176. Public notice of 
the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the 
same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to 
eight entomological serials. The apphcation was supported by 
Dr Elwood C. Zimmerman (CSIRO Division of Entomology, 
Canberra, Australia), Dr M.G. Morris {Monks Wood Experimental 
Station, Huntingdon, U.K.) and Dr M. Ter-Minassian {Academy of 
Sciences, Leningrad, USSR). No adverse comment was received. 
Dr Zimmerman thought it would be better if the family- 
group name based on Polydrusus should be spelled 
'POLYDRUSINI'. I verified that Tolydrosus' is an available 
name, being an unjustified emendation by Schonherr, 1826, of 
Polydrusus; and Dr Thompson showed me that POLYDROSINI 
is indeed the name that is in general use, so that stability would 
not be served by altering it. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1980) 
12 for or against the proposals set out in Bull, zool Nom. vol. 32, 
p. 1 76. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1980 the state of 
the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the 
following order: Melville, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, WilUnk, 
Mroczkowski, Kraus, Hahn, Bayer, Starobogatov, Habe, Sabrosky, 
Halvorsen, Nye, Alvarado, Binder, Cogger, Tortonese, Welch, 
Bemardi 

Negative Votes — none (0) 

Abstentions — Holthuis, Dupuis 

Dr Holthuis and Dr Nye pointed out that the type genus of 
POLYDROSINI must be cited as Polydrosus, not Polydrusus: 
Professor Dupuis would have preferred to alter Polydrusus to 
Polydrosus; Professor Tortonese would have preferred to alter 
POLYDROSINI to POLYDRUSINI. 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 
The following are the original references for names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruUng given in the present Opinion: 
PHYLLOBIINI Schonherr, 1826, Curculionidum dispositio 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 119 



methodica (Leipzig), p. 1 5 
Phyllobius Germar, 1824, Insectonim species ....vol. 1, Coleoptera, 

p. 447 
POLYDROSINl Schonherr, 1823, Isis von Oken (Jena), vol. 7, part 

10, column 1 144 
Polydrusus Germar, 1817, Mag. entomol (Germar), vol. 2, p. 341 
pyri, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 384 
undatus, Curculio, Fabricius, 1781, Species insectorum ....vol. 1, 

p. 189. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)12 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper 
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the 
decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1 1 79. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
17 September 1980 



120 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



OPINION 1180 

THAMNOFHILUS AMAZONICUS SCLATER, 1858 (AVES) 
CONSERVED 

RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name 
ruficollis Spix, 1825, as pubhshed in the binomen Thamnophilus 
ruficollis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of 
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) amazonicus Sclater, 1858, as published in the 
binomen Thamnophilus amazonicus, and as 
interpreted by the neotype designated by Parkes, 
1975 (Name Number 2743); 

(b) cinereiceps Pelzein, 1868, as pubhshed in the 
binomen Thamnophilus cinereiceps (Name Number 
2744). 

(3) The specific name ruficollis Spix, 1825, as published in 
the binomen Thamnophilus ruficollis, and as suppressed under the 
plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and InvaUd Specific Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 1077. 



HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2108 
An appUcation for the conservation of Thamnophilus 
amazonicus Sclater, 1858 (with a collateral proposal affecting 
T cinereiceps Pelzein, 1868) was first received from Dr K.C. Parkes 
(Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, U.S.A.) on 9 January 1975. After 
some correspondence it was sent to the printer on 16 May 1975 
and published on 25 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, 
pp. 177-180. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well 
as to the statutory serials and to five general and eleven speciahsed 
serials. The appUcation was supported by Dr G.F Mees and 
Dr Eugene Eisenmann, who helped in its preparation; no comment 
was received after it had been published. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 121 



DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)13 for or against the proposal set out in Bull, zool Nom. 
vol. 32, p. 179. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1980 
the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes - twenty-three (23) received in the 
following order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, 
Trjapitzin, Wilhnk, Mroczkowski, Kraus, Hahn, Bayer, Starobogatov, 
Habe, Sabrosky, Halvorsen, Nye, Alvarado, Binder, Cogger, Dupuis, 
Tortonese, Welch, Bernardi 

Negative Votes — none (0) 

No voting papers were returned by Heppell and Ride. 



ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruUng given in the 
present Opinion: 
amazonicus, Thamnophilus, Sclater, 1858, Proc. zool. Soc. London 

vol. 27, p. 214 
cinereiceps, Thamnophilus, Pelzeln, 1868, Zur Ornithologie 

Brasiliens, part 2, P- 145 
ruficollis, Thamnophilus, Spix, \825, Avium species novae ...\o\. 2, 

p. 27. 



The following is the original reference to a neotype designation 
accepted in the ruUng given in the present Opinion: of British 
Museum (Natural History) No. 1889. 9. 20. 89 as neotype of 
Thamnophilus amazonicus Sclater, 1858 by Parkes, K.C., 1975, 
Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 178. 

CERTIFICATE 
I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)13 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper 
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the 
decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1 180. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
19 September 1980 



122 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



OPINION 1181 

MICRODRYAS LASERON, 1950 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA) 

DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES 

RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of 
type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Microdryas 
Laseron, 1950, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Epigrus 
iravadioides Gatliff & Gabriel, 1913, is designated as type species of 
that genus. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers speci- 
fied: 

(a) Microdryas Laseron, 1950 (gender: feminine), type 
species, by designation under the plenary powers in 
(1) above, Epigrus iravadioides Gathff & Gabriel, 
1913 (Name Number 2121); 

(b) Subestea Cotton, 1944 (gender: feminine), type 
species, by original designation, Alvania seminodosa 
May, 1916 (Name Number 2 1 22). 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers speci- 
fied: 

(a) iravadioides Gatliff & Gabriel, 1913, as published in 
the binomen Epigrus iravadioides (specific name of 
type species of Microdryas Laseron, 1950 (Name 
Number 2745); 

(h) australiae Frauenfeld, 1867, as published in the 
binomen Cingula australiae (the vaUd name, at the 
date of this ruling, for the type species of Subestea 
Cotton, 1944) (Name Number 2746). 



HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2121 

Correspondence on several subjects vdth Dr W.F. Ponder 
(Australian Museum, Sydney) during 1975 led to the receipt of an 
application for the determination of the type species oi Microdryas 
Laseron, 1950 on 21 April 1975. The genus is one based on a mis- 
identified type species. The application was sent to the printer on 
16 May 1975 and published on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. 
Nam. vol. 32, p. 192. Public notice of the possible use of the 
plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the 
Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to five general serials and 
to four malacological serials. No comment was received. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 123 



DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 9 April 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)14 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nam. 
vol. 32, p. 192. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1980 
the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-two, received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Corliss, Brinck, Trjapitzin, Willink, 
Mroczkowski, Hahn, Bayer, Starobogatov, Habe, Sabrosky, 
Halvorsen, Nye, Alvarado, Binder, Cogger, Dupuis, Tortonese, 
Welch, Bemardi 

Negative Vote — Kraus 

No voting papers were returned by Heppell and Ride. 

The follovdng comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Kraus: 'There is no statement by the applicant indicating that 
the genus in question, described not earlier than 1950, has a more 
general importance. To a considerable extent the problem seems to 
trouble specialists on RISSOIDAE of the Australian region.' 

Sabrosky: 'A case of misidentified type species for treatment 
under Article 70, although this is not mentioned in the appUcation.' 

Cogger: 'Although in agreement with the solution proposed 
by the applicant to overcome the problem created by a misidenti- 
fied type species, he appears to be in error in his contention that in 
upholding the original type-species designation the genus Af/crofi?rya5 
"would be reduced to a synonym of Subestea". On the contrary, 
Microdryas would become the senior synonym and so not only 
leave the iravadioides group without an available generic name, but 
in addition bring about a presumably unwanted replacement of 
Subestea hy Microdryas' 

Bemardi: 'Oui, parce que les "aM5/raftae" qui etaient sous les 
yeux de Laseron, 1950 etaient des iravadioides.' 



ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references to names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion : 
australiae, Cingula, Frauenfeld, 1867, Reise der Fregatte Novara 

urn die Erde, 1857-59, Zool. Theil, vol. 2 (3), MoUusca, p. 14 
iravadioides, Epigrus, Gatliff & Gabriel, 1913, Proc. roy. Soc. 

Victoria N.S. vol. 26 (1), p. 67 
Microdryas Laseron, 1950, Rec. Australian Mus. vol. 22 (3), p. 277 
Subestea Cotton, 1944, Trans, roy. Soc. S. Australia, vol. 69, p. 292 



124 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)14 were cast 
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper 
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the 
decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1181. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
19 September 1980 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 125 



TYROPHAGUS OUDEMANS, 1 924 (ACARINA): 

PROPOSALS TO CLARIFY THE NAME OF THE TYPE SPECIES 

AND TO CONSERVE THE NAME OF AN IMPORTANT 

PEST SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)1450 

By Phyllis L. Robertson {School of Chemistry , University of 
New South Wales, P.O. Box 1, Kensington, N.S. W. 2033, Australia) 

The present apphcation concerns names which may properly 
be applied to species of Acarina of the genus Tyrophagus Oudemans, 
1924. Its first object is to request the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress the 
specific name dimidiatus Hermann, 1804, on the grounds that it is 
a nomen dubium, thereby rendering longior Gervais, 1844, the 
oldest available name for the species called Tyrophagus dimidiatus 
by Oudemans (Tijdschr. Ent. vol. 67, p. xxv, 1924). The 
Commission is also requested to place on the Official List the 
nominal species longior Gervais, 1844, and also the nominal species 
putrescentiae Schrank, 1781, type of the genus Tyrophagus, for 
which species the writer has designated neotypes on pages 165 and 
157 respectively o^ Aust. J. Zool. vol. 7(2), 1959. Details of the 
case are as follows: — 

2. In 1924 when Oudemans {Ent. Ber. Amst. vol. 6, 
p. 250), erected the genus Tyrophagus, he placed in it Acarus 
dimidiatus Hermann, 1804 {Mem. Apter. p. 85, pi. 6, fig. 4), among 
other species, and great confusion has continued to centre around 
this name. Having decided earlier that Hermann's dimidiatus 
belonged to the generic complex within which he distinguished 
Tyrophagus in 1924, Oudemans must have remained doubtful 
about the species to which it should be applied. He appears to have 
used it first in 1906 for a form which is now known by his later 
name Tyrophagus australasiae , but in 1924 he transferred it to a 
species of Tyrophagus which had been called longior Gervais for 
the preceding eighty years, and which was sufficiently clearly 
described and illustrated during that time as still to be recognizable 
in the light of current knowledge. 

3. Despite the final stand taken by Oudemans, more recent 
authorities have been unable to agree on the identity of Hermann's 
dimidiatus. Some, for example Zakhvatkin, 1941, consider it to be 
unrecognizable, while others have applied the name to one or other 
of at least four different species. 

4. In addition to the doubt which exists on the correctness 
of Oudemans' initial action in introducing Acarus dimidiatus into 
the group of which Tyrophagus is a part, and the threat to stability 
represented by the failure of present-day authorities to agree on the 



126 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



identity of the species to which the name should be applied, still 
further doubt on the nomenclatural status of dimidiatus is cast by 
close examination of Hermann's original description and 
illustrations. 

EXTRACT FROM: A REVISION OF THE GENUS TYROPHAGUS, 

WITH A DISCUSSION ON ITS TAXONOMIC POSITION IN THE 

ACARIN A, Aust. J. Zool. vol. 7(2), pp. 146-181, 1959, 

by Phyllis L. Robertson 

'Hermann's (1804) description of dimidiatus, in French, 
states: "Abdomen spherical, of a yellowish green in front, white 
behind and underneath, with radiating hairs, longer than the body 
[this description is repeated in Latin], pi. VI, fig. 4. It is found 
among mosses. I have not observed any palp, but intermediary 
chelicerae (pi. IX, fig. b) which, however, were not articulated at all 
as in other mites". 

'There are a number of points in this description which, 
taken in conjunction with Hermann's drawings, suggest that it 
should not be accepted for any species of Tyrophagus at present 
known: 

(1) Form of the "abdomen" [i.e. the hysterosoma] . - 
Characteristically the hysterosoma of Tyrophagus is far 
from spherical as in Hermann's species, being longer 
than it is wide, with obvious "shoulders" anteriorly and 
flattened dorsoventrally (see Fig. 35, p. 166) [i.e. in 
Robertson, 1959] . In Hermann's illustration (pi. VI, fig. 
4) of dimidiatus, too, there is a carefully drawn curving 
line across the hysterosoma which seems likely to repre- 
sent either a colour boundary or an additional suture. 
Neither of these interpretations would be applicable to 
a species of Tyrophagus. 

(2) Colour. — In all known species of Tyrophagus the body 
cuticle is colourless, with the legs and apodemes only 
slightly darkened. None of them has a characteristic 
distribution of yellowish-green and white. Indeed, any 
trace of colour in the hysterosoma could only be due to 
body contents showing through the cuticle, and would 
appear towards the posterior end, not anteriorly as 
Hermann described. 

(3) Habitat. - Oudemans (1924b) does not appear to have 
been successful in finding his species in moss, the 
habitat recorded by Hermann, nor have species of 
Tyrophagus been found there by other authors. 
[Note: This position with regard to habitat cannot in 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 127 



itself be taken as rendering the name dimidiatus inappli- 
cable to species of the genus Tyrophagus. Since the 
latter are polyphagous, it may possibly be demonstrated 
that they occur in moss, as well as in other habitats as 
yet unrecognized. The present position, nevertheless, 
fails to offer any positive support for the view that the 
dimidiatus of Hermann is a species of Tyrophagus.] 
(4) Mouthparts . — Hermann's description of the chelicerae 
appears to be the most significant statement of all. In 
the original French he referred to "des pinces inter- 
mediaires, qui n'etoient cependant point articulees 
comme dans d'autres mites". But there is some doubt as 
to whether or not Hermann's illustration (pi. IX, fig. b) 
of the chelicerae is in agreement with his emphatic state- 
ment. If the written statement is accepted, then it must 
be assumed that Hermann's specimen was indeed one 
which lacked the articulation usual in other mites, and 
that the distally-p laced lines in his illustration were con- 
tour hnes and not joints. If this view is taken, then 
dimidiatus must be excluded from the genus 
Tyrophagus on the basis of the structure of its 
chelicerae. Alternatively it may be accepted that 
Hermann's illustration represents a chelicera with 
normal articulation of the type found in Tyrophagus. 
But this interpretation does not agree with the written 
description, and non-agreement between the two would 
make the identification of dimidiatus impossible, and so 
would also constitute grounds for rejecting it as the 
name of a species of Tyrophagus.' 



5. There are thus at least three counts on which it appears 
that the interests of nomenclatural stability would best be served by 
using the plenary powers of the International Commission to 
suppress dimidiatus as a nomen dubium. These are, first, that 
present-day authorities either do not agree on the species of 
Tyrophagus to which the name dimidiatus Hermann, 1804, should 
be applied, or do not recognize it at all; secondly, that the 
characteristics of dimidiatus described by Hermann, in particular 
the shape of the abdomen, the colour, and the structure of the 
chehcerae, point to some forni other than Tyrophagus; and, thirdly, 
that Hermann's description and illustration of the chelicerae, taken 
together, must be interpreted either as direct evidence that the 
species is not a Tyrophagus or that it is a species which is beyond 
recognition. 



28 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



6. In the event of the International Commission taking 
the action suggested to suppress the name dimidiatus Hermann, 
1804, then consideration must also be given to naming the species 
of Tyrophagus to which dimidiatus was applied by Oudemans in 
1924. It was pointed out by the writer (Aust. J. Zool. vol. 7(2), pp. 
153-4, 1959) that if dimidiatus is suppressed then Tyroglyphus 
longior Ger\'dis, 1844 (Hist. nat. Inst. (Apt^res) vol. 3, p. 262, pi. 
35, fig. 5) becomes the first available name for that species. It is 
suggested that this name is acceptable both nomenclaturally and on 
zoological grounds, although no type is known to exist. To stabilize 
the position, the writer has taken the further step of designating a 
neotype for longior, and recognition of this action is now sought 
from the Commission. 

7. The status of Acarus putrescentiae Schrank, 1 78 1 (Enum. 
Ins. Austr. ind. p. 521) which Oudemans designated as the type of 
his genus Tyrophagus, also requires clarification, since no type 
specimen of putrescentiae is preserved and since some modem 
authorities consider the species to be unrecognizable. The writer 
(Aust. J. Zool. vol. 7(2), p. 151, 1959) has affirmed, from an 
examination of the Oudemans Collection held by the Rijksmuseum 
van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands, that Oudemans had 
a reasonably clear conception of the form he identified as the 
putrescentiae of Schrank, a species which is acceptable for inclusion 
in Tyrophagus on zoological grounds and whose name is an avail- 
able one in the group. In the publication cited above, one of 
Oudemans' specimens is therefore designated the neotype of 
putrescentiae , a step which is now brought to the notice of the 
Commission as stabilizing both the species itself and also the 
genus Tyrophagus of which it is the type. 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature is therefore asked :- 

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name 
dimidiatus Hermann, 1804, as published in the binomen Acarus 
dimidiatus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for 
those of the Law of Homonymy ; 

(2) to place the generic name Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924 
(gender: mascuHne) type-species, by original designation, Acarus 
putrescentiae Schrank, 1781, on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology ; 

(3) to place the following specific names on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology:- 

(a) putrescentiae Schrank, 1781, as published in the 
binomen Acarus putrescentiae (type-species of 
Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1824) (as interpreted by 
the neotype designated by Robertson, 1959); 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 1 29 



(b) longior Gervais, 1 844, as published in the binomen 
Tyroglyphus longior (as interpreted by the neotype 
designated bv Robertson, 1959; 

(4) to place the specific name dimidiatus Hermann, 1 804, as 
published in the binomen Acanis dimidiatus (as suppressed under 
the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected 
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; 

(5) to place the family name TYROPHAGIDAE Oudemans, 
1924 (type-genus Tyrophagus Oudemans 1924) on the Official List 
of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 



130 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



MANA TI STELLER, 1 774 AND TRICHECHUS EXUNGUIS 

(NATTERER IN DIESING, 1839) (MAMMALIA, SIRENIA): 

PROPOSAL TO PLACE THESE NAMES ON THE OFFICIAL 

INDEXES OF REJECTED AND INVALID NAMES IN 

ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.)2338 

By Daryl P. Domning {Department of Anatomy , Howard University, 
Washington, DC. 20059) 

Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794: p. 292 (type, by monotypy,//. 
stelleri Retzius, 1794, ibid.) was upheld over Rhytina (emended 
forni of Rytina Illiger, 1811) as the generic name of Steller's sea 
cow by ICZN Opinion 90 (1 925), though not placed on the Official 
List. The oldest available name for the type species, as noted by 
Palmer (1895), is Manati gigas Zimmermann, 1780. The spelling 
"manati" was commonly used in the 1 8th Century as a vernacular 
name for the manatee {Tricheclius Linnaeus, 1758), and Steller 
(1751), believing the tropical manatee to be identical with the 
animal he discovered at Bering Island, applied the term "manati" 
to both. Allen (1902) stated that "the generic name Manati 
[Zimmerman, 1780] is of even date with Manatus Storr 
[=Trichechus L.J", implying that he considered the two as 
homonyms. {Manatus Storr. 1 780 is in fact a junior homonym of 
Manatus Briinnich, 1771, which was rejected in favor of Trichechus 
by ICZN Opinion 112, 1929. Direction 13 placed both of the 
former names on the Official Index.) However, according to Article 
56a of the Code, they must be regarded as distinct names, and the 
original applications of the name Manati were to Steller's sea cow. 
In addition to the combinations Manati gigas Zimmermann, 1 780 
and Manati balaenurus Boddaert, 1785, both senior objective 
synonyms of Hydrodamalis stelleri Retzius, 1 794, there is a passage 
describing the Bering Island sea cows in a posthumous publication 
by Steller (1774, p. 97) which bears the heading "Die Seekuh 
Manati, auf russisch Morskaia Korowa'' (italics in original). Though 
this usage was probably intended as vernacular, it could be inter- 
preted as a vahd uninominal publication of a new generic name, and 
1 have treated it as such and as a nomen oblitum (Domning, 1978a, 
p. 74). As Manati has not been regarded as the valid name o^ ^ny 
form for well over a century and a half, although an available senior 
objective synonym of Hydrodamalis, it should be formally 
suppressed. 

2. The valid name of the Amazonian manatee is now 
universally considered to be Trichechus inunguis (Natterer in 
Peizeln, 1883, pp. 89-94), and this name has been consistently used 
by mammalogists during the last 50 years (e.g., Hatt, 1934;Coates, 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 131 



1939, 1940; Vieira, 1949; Frye & Herald, 1969; Robineau, 1969; 
Evans & Herald, 1970; Loughman et al., 1970; Bertram & Ricardo 
Bertram, 1973; Sonoda and Takemura, 1973; Domning, 1978b; 
Bullock et al., 1980). However, in 1839 the parasitologist Diesing 
described two new species of worms {Heterocheilus tunicatus and 
Amphistoma fabaceum) from Natterer's type series of this manatee. 
As the host species had been recognized by Natterer as new but had 
not yet been described in print, Diesing (1839, p. 230n) appended 
to his description of the parasites a lengthy quotation from 
Natterer's manuscript describing and naming the manatee. However, 
whereas the name appears in Pelzeln, 1883, as Manatus inunguis, 
Diesing (perhaps quoting from a different draft of the manuscript) 
has Manatus exunguis. This, the senior name, while unknown to 
mammalogists, has had a persistent life of its own in the parasito- 
logical literature, although 1 am aware of only three instances of 
its use in the 20th Century (Stunkard, 1929; Price, 1932; Bay lis, 
1936). In all three instances the name was merely cited as having 
been used by earlier writers for a host species, the host itself not 
being further discussed nor any new parasitological information 
relating to it being reported. Price, 1932, pp. 43, 58, even indi- 
cated uncertainty as to whether inunguis was not really the proper 
name. Though its use now appears to have died out even among 
parasitologists (cf. Boever et al., 1977), the name Trichechus 
exunguis (Naterer in Diesing, 1839) should be suppressed to avoid 
any danger to the present universal acceptance of its junior objec- 
tive synonym T. inunguis. 

3. I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoo- 
logical Nomenclature: 

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers 

(a) to suppress the generic name Manati Steller, 
1774 (first pubUshed uninominally and later in 
the binomina Manati gigas Zimmermann, 1780 
and Manati balaenurus Boddaert, 1785) as an 
unused senior synonym of Hydrodamalis Retzius, 
1 794, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but 
not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; 

(b) to suppress the specific name exunguis Natterer 
in Diesing, 1839, as published in the binomen 
Manatus exunguis (a senior objective synonym of 
Manatus inunguis Natterer in Pelzeln, 1883) for 
the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for 
those of the Law of Homonymy; 

(2) to place the generic name Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794 
(gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Hydrodamalis 
stelleri Retzius, 1794, on the Official List of Generic Names in 



132 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



Zoology; 

(3) to place the specific name gigas Zimmermann, 1780, as 
published in the binomen Manati gigas (the valid specific name of 
the type species of Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1 794) on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology ; 

(4) to place the generic name Manati Steller, 1774, as 
suppressed under the plenary powers in ( 1 )(a) above, on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invahd Generic Names in Zoology; 

(5) to place the specific name exunguis Natterer m Diesing, 
1839, as published in the binomen Manatus exunguis, and as 
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, on the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Specific Names in Zoology. 



REFERENCES 

ALLEN, J.A., 1902. Zimmermann's 'Zoologiae Geographicae' and 

'Geographische Geschichte' considered in their relation to mammalian 

nomenclature. 5u//. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 16, pp. 13-22 
BAYLIS, H.A., 1936. Some parasitic worms from the British Cameroons. >l«/i. 

Mag. nat. Hist. (10) vol. 17, pp. 257-272 
BERTRAM, G.C.L., & RICARDO BERTRAM, C.K., 1973. The modem 

Sirenia: their distribution and status. Biol. J. linn. Soc. London, vol. 5 

(4), pp. 297-338 
BODDAERT, P., 1785. Elenchus Animalium, vol. L Rotterdam: xxxviii + 

174pp 
BOEVER, W.J., SHILLER, J. & KANE, K.K., 1977. Chiorchis spp. tremato- 

diasis in a Natterer's manatee Trichechus inunguis. J. Zoo anim. Med. 

vol. 8(1), pp. 5-6 
BRiJNNICH, M., 1771. Zoologiae Fundamenta. Hafniae & Lipsiae: iv + 253 

pp. 
BULLOCK, T.H., DOMNING, D.P. & BEST, R.C., 1980. Evoked brain poten- 
tials demonstrate hearing in a manatee {Trichechus inunguis). J. Mamm. 

vol. 61(1), pp. 130-133 
COATES, C.W., 1939. Baby mermaid — a manatee at the Aquarium. Bull. New 

York zool. Soc. vol. 42(5), pp. 140-148 
1940. Manatees at the Aquarium. Bull. New York zool. Soc. vol. 43(3), 

pp. 99-100 
DIESING, CM., 1839. Neue Gattungen von Binnenwiirmem nebst einem 

Nachtrage zur Monographic der Amphistomen. Ann. wiener Mus. 

Naturg. vol. 2(2), pp. 219-242 
DOMNING, D.P., 1978a. Sirenian evolution in the North Pacific Ocean. Univ. 

Calif. Publ. geol. Sci. vol. 1 18, xi + 176 pp 
1978b. The myology of the Amazonian manatee, Trichechus inunguis 

(Natterer) (Mammalia: Sirenia). Acta Amazonica vol. 8(2), Suppl. 1, 

pp. 1-81 
EVANS, W.E. & HERALD, E.S., 1970. Underwater calls of a captive Amazon 

manatee, Trichechus inunguis. J. Mamm. vol. 51, pp. 820-823 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 133 



FRYE, F.L., & HERALD, E.S., 1969. Osteomyelitis in a manatee. /. Amer. 

vet. Med. Assoc, vol. 155(7), pp. 1073-1076 
HATT, R.T., 1934. A manatee collected by the American Museum Congo 

Expedition, with observations on the Recent manatees. Bull. Amer. 

Mas. nat. Hist. vol. 66(4), pp. 533-566 
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, 

1925. Opinion 90: Report on sixteen generic names of mammals for 

which suspension of rules was requested. Smithson. misc. Coll. vol. 

73(3), pp. 34^0 

1929. Opinion 112: Suspension declined for Manatus 1772 vs. 

Trichechus 1158. Smithson. misc. Coll. vol. 73(6), p. 19 
LOUGHMAN, W.D., FRYE, F.L. & HERALD, E.S., 1970. The chromosomes 

of a male manatee Trichechus inunguis. Internat. Zoo Yearbk. vol. 10, 

pp. 151-152 
PALMER, T.S.. 1895. The earliest name for SteUer's sea cow and dugong. 

Science (2) vol. 2(40), pp. 449-450 
PELZELN, A. von, 1883. Brasilische Skugethiere. Resultate von Johann 

Natterers Reisen in den Jahren 1817 bis 1835. Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. 

Wien, vol. 33, Beiheft pp. 1-140 
PRICE, E.W., 1932. The trematode parasites of marine mammals. Proc. U.S. 

nat. Mus. vol. 81(13), pp. 1-68 
RETZIUS, A.J., 1794. Anmarkningar vid genus Trichechi. K. Svensk. 

Vetenskapsacad. Handl. (2) vol. 15, pp. 286-300 
ROBINEAU, D., 1969. Morphologic externe du complexe osseux temporal 

chez les Sireniens. M€m. Mus. nat. Hist, nat.. Six. A (Zool.) (2) vol. 60 

(1), pp. 1-32 
SONODA, S., & TAKEMURA, A., 1973. Underwater sounds of the manatees, 

Trichechus manatus manatus and T. inunguis (Trichechidae). Kept. 

Inst. Breeding Res., Tokyo Univ. Agric. vol. 4, pp. 19-24 
STELLER, G.W., 1751. De bestiis marinis. Nov. Comm. Acad. Sci. Petropoli- 

tanae vol 2, pp. 289-398 
1774. Beschreibung von dem Lande Kamtschatka Frankfurt & 

Leipzig: viii + 28 + 384 + 72 pp 
STORR, G.C.C., 1780. Prodromus methodi Mammalium Ttibingen, pp. 

1-43 
STUNKARD, H.W., 1929. The parasitic worms collected by the American 

Museum of Natural Historj' Expedition to the Belgian Congo, 1909- 

1914. I. Trematoda. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 58(6), pp. 233- 

289 
VIEIRA, CO. da C, 1949. Novo contribuigSo ao conhecimento dos mamiferos 

do Rio Jurua. Bol. Mus. Paraense Emilio Goeldi vol. 10, pp. 239-274 
ZIMMERMANN, E.A.W., 1780. Geographische Geschichte des Menschen und 

der vierfussigen Thiere, vol. II. Leipzig, pp. 1^32 



134 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



LEDELLA VERRILL &. BUSH, 1897 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA) 
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES 

Z.N.(S.)2238 

By Anders Waren (^Department of Zoology, University of 
Goteborg, Box 250 59, S-400 31 Goteborg, Sweden) 

The purpose of the present application is to preserve the 
generic name Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897, in its accustomed sense 
and to clear up some anomaUes concerning its type species, alleged 
to be Leda messanensis Seguenza, 1877. 

2. Jeffreys, 1 870, p. 69, made a note under the description 
of a new species, Leda acuminata Jeffreys, saying: 'Hitherto known 
only as a Sicilian fossil. Professor Seguenza having kindly sent me 
specimens from the neighbourhood of Messina as L.[eda] 
messanensis. As he has not described it I venture to prefer the 
characteristic name which I had given it when I dredged it off the 
west coast of Ireland to the local name proposed by him.' This is 
cited to show that Jeffreys considered messanensis a synonym of 
his acuminata, and that he preferred the latter name as being more 
descriptive. There is no description or figure or anything else to 
define Leda messanensis Seguenza, and the name is therefore a 
nomen nudum, proposed and rejected in synonymy at one and the 
same time. 

3. Seguenza, 1877, p. 1175, quoted the name ''Junonia 
Seguenza, 1876 (M.3)' as 'Quarta sezione' of Leda Schumacher, 
1817. The first of several species included is "Leda acuminata Jeff., 
Tav. Ill, fig. 15, 15a, 15c, 15e - Sinonimi: Leda messanensis 
Seguenza (M.S.). . .'. Apparently Junonia was proposed with a 
proper description and included several species, but no type species 
was designated. The specific name messanensis was pubUshed — 
again in synonymy - without proper description, but related to 
material which is still extant (supposedly those specimens sent to 
Jeffreys). 

4. Jeffreys, 1879, p. 578, replaced Leda acuminata Jeffreys 
by Leda messanensis Seguenza because of secondary homonymy 
with Nucula acuminata von Buch, in Zieten, \S33, Petref Wilrtt. 
(10) p. 33, which had been transferred to Leda by d'Orbigny, 1850, 
Prodr. Paleont. vol. 1, p. 234. Nucula acuminata von Buch, 1833, 
was, however, a junior primary homonym of Nucula acuminata 
Eichwald, 1830, Naturhist. Skizzen von Lithauen, p. 211. This 
raises an interesting point that is apparently not covered by the 
Code Jeffreys' 1879 adoption of Leda messanensis Seguenza (a 
name first published in synonymy in 1 870) as a valid name makes it 
an available name as from its first publication in synonymy, i.e. as 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 135 



of Seguenza in Jeffreys, 1870. But its potential validity must 
depend upon whether Jeffreys v^'as right to regard Nucula acuminata 
von Buch (whose status as a junior primary homonym was 
obviously unknown to him) as vaUd from the point of view of 
secondary homonymy when transferred to Leda. It seems to me 
that the simplest solution is to accept that Jeffreys acted in good 
faith in 1879 and to accept his action as sl fait accompli. (Waren, 
1978, considered the Sicilian fossil and the Recent form distin- 
guishable and used Seguenza's name for the former and Jeffreys's 
name for the latter. This, however, does not affect the proposals in 
paragraph 9.) 

5. Verrill & Bush, 1897, p. 54, established 'Ledella gen. 
nov. Figures 13, 18. Type L. messanensis (Seg.)' and gave as a 
synonym 'Junonia Seguenza, Nuculidi ... p. 1175, 1877 (not of 
Hubner)' [1818, Verz. bekannt. Schmett., p. 34]. Examination by 
the present author of the material on which Verrill & Bush based 
their description and figures of Ledella messanensis and of syntypes 
of L. messanensis Seguenza in the Jeffreys collection in the U.S. 
National Museum of Natural History showed that two different 
species are involved (Waren, 1978). Ledella Verrill & Bush was thus 
based on a misidentification and the case is to be referred to the 
Commission. The manner in which Ledella is introduced leaves no 
doubt that it is meant as a distinct name with Junonia Seguenza 
(non Hubner) as a synonym, and not as a new replacement name in 
the proper sense. Thus, Ledella does not automatically take the 
same type species as Junonia. 

6. Verrill & Bush, 1897, p. 55, also described Yoldiella 
gen. nov., with type species 'Yoldiella lucida Loven' which means 
Yoldia lucida Loven, 1 846, p. 34. 

7. Since 1897, Ledella has been used mainly in the sense 
of Verrill & Bush, i.e. with the species that they believed to be Leda 
messanensis and that was redescribed as L. bushae War^n, 1978, as 
type species. This interpretation has been used for the description 
of about 25 new species (papers marked (i) in the references) and 
for inclusion of about 20 species originally described in other 
genera (marked * in the references). Only very few authors, all 
working exclusively on Mediterranean species, have used Ledella 
with the true L. messanensis Seguenza as type species (marked (iii) 
in the references). No new species have been described, nor have 
any species been transferred to Ledella interpreted in this way. 

8. WarSn, 1978, has shown that Yoldiella Verrill & Bush 
would probably be the appropriate genus for the true L. messanensis 
Seguenza. The species that Verrill & Bush named messanensis was 
not actually described by them. Their only figure shows a variety 
and is not eligible for defining that species, which therefore needs a 



136 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



new name (Waren, 1978). 

9. . Of the three alternatives open to the Commission under 
Article 70a, alternative (ii) is not relevant because the identity of 
the species in question is not in doubt. The choice of alternative 
(iii) would lead to confusion between the generic names Ledella and 
Yoldiella. The Commission is therefore urged to adopt alternative 
(i), as follows: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of 
type species hitherto made for the nominal genus 
Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897, and, having done so, to 
designate Ledella bushae Waren, 1978 as type species of 
that genus; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (gender: feminine), 
type species, by designation under the plenary 
powers in (1) above, Ledella bushae Waren, 1978; 

(b) Yoldiella Verrill & Bush, 1897 (gender: feminine), 
type species, by original designation, Yoldia lucida 
LovSn, 1846; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoo- 
logy: 

(a) bushae Waren, 1978, as published in the binomen 
Ledella bushae (specific name of type species of 
Ledella Verrill & Bush, 1897); 

(b) lucida Loven, 1846, as pubhshed in the binomen 
Yoldia lucida (specific name of type species of 
Yoldiella Verrill & Bush, 1 897). 

REFERENCES 

Papers marked (i) contain descriptions of new species described in Ledella as 
though L. bushae were its type species; those marked * contain transferences 
to Ledella in that sense; that marked (iii) refers to Ledella used as though the 
true L. messanensis Seguenza were its type species. 

(i) ABBOTT, R.T. 1975. American seashells, 2nd ed. Van Nostrand 
Reinhold Co., New York. 663 pp. 

(i) BEETS, C. 1943. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der angeblich oberoligo- 
canen MoUusken-Fauna der Insel Buton, Niederlandisch-Ostindiens. 
Leid. geol. Meded., vol. 13, pp. 256-367 

* COTTON, B.C. 1961. South Australian Mollusca. Pelecypoda. Hand- 

book Flora Fauna S. Australia. 363 pp. 

(i) DALL, W.H. 1927. Small shells from dredgings off the south east coast 
of the United States by the U.S. fisheries steamer 'Albatross' in 1885 
and 18S6. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., vollO (18), 134 pp. 

(i) DELL, R.K. 1 952. A deep water molluscan fauna from the Tasman Sea. 
Rec. Dom. Mus. Wellington, vol. 1, pp. 99-107 



Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 137 



(i) DELL, R.K. 1953. A molluscan fauna from the Chatham rise. Rec. 
Dom. Mus. Wellington, vol. 2, pp. 37-53 

* 1955. A synopsis of the Nuculanidae with checklists of the 

Australian Tertiary and Recent species. Rec. Dom. Mus. Wellington, 
vol. 2, pp. 123-134 

(i) FILATOVA, Z.A. Quantitative distribution of bivalves in the far 

eastern seas of the USSR and in the western Pacific. Trudy Inst. 

OAreano/., vol. 41,pp. 132-145 
(i) FOKINA, N.S. 1968. On families Nuculanidae and Malletudae in upper 

Palaeogene deposits (south of USSR). Bull. Moscow Soc. Nat., Ser. 

Geol.,vol. 63,pp. 73-88 
(i) GORBUNOW, G. 1946. Bottomlife of the Novosiberian shoal-waters 

and the central part of the Arctic Ocean. Dreif. Eksp. Glavs. Parok. G. 

Sedov, 1937-40,vol. 3,pp.30-138 

JEFFREYS, J.G. 1870. Mediterranean Mollusca. yl/?«. Mag. nat. Hist. 

ser. 4, vol. 6, pp. 65-86 
-- 1879 On the Mollusca procured during the 'Lightning' and 

'Porcupine' expeditions, 1868-1870 (Part 2). Proc zool. Soc. London 

for 1879, pp. 553-588 
(i) KNUDSEN, J. 1970. The systematics and biology of abyssal and hadal 

Bivalvia. Galathea Rep. vol. 1 1 , 241 pp. 
(i) LAWS, C.R. 1941. The moUuscan fenule at Pakaurangi Point, Kaipara, 

2. Trans. Proc. r. Soc. New Zealand, vol. 71, pp. 134-151 

* LUDBROOK, N.H. 1961. Revision of the Tate molluscan types: 
Pelecypoda — Nuculidae and Nuculanidae. Trans, r. Soc. S. Australia, 
vol. 85, pp. 55-65 

(i) MAXWELL, P.A. 1969. Middle Terriary Mollusca from North Otago 
and South Canterbury, New Zealand. Trans, r. Soc. New Zealand, vol. 
6, pp. 155-185 

(iii) NORDSIECK, F. Die europaischen Meeresmuscheln. G. Fischer, 
Stuttgart. 256 pp. 

(i)* POWELL, A.W.B. 1935. New Recent and Tertiary Nuculanidae from 
New Zealand. Proc. malac. Soc. London, vol. 21, pp. 252-255 

(i) PRASHAD, B. 1932. The Lamellibranchia of the Siboga Expedition. 
Siboga-Expeditie vol. 58c, 353 pp. 

SEGUENZA, G. 1877. Nuculidi terziarie rinivenute nelle provincie 
meridionale d'ltahi. A tti A ccad. naz. Lincei, Mem. (3) vol. 1, pp. 1 163- 
1190 

(i) THIELE, J. & JAECKEL, S. 1931. Muscheln der deutschen Tiefsee- 
Expedition. Wiss. Ergebn, deutsch. Tiefsee-Exped. Valdivia, vol. 21, 
pp. 161-268 

VERRILL, A.E. & BUSH, K.J. 1897. Revision of the genera of Nucu- 
lidae and Ledidae of the Atlantic coast of the U.S. Amer. J. Sci. vol. 3, 
pp. 51-63 

1898. Revision of the deep-water MoUusca of the Atlantic coast 

of North America, with descriptions of new genera and species. Proc. 
U.S. nat. Mus. vol. 20, pp. 775-901 

(i) WAREN, A. 1978. On the taxonomy of some north Atlantic species 
referred to Ledella and Yoldiella (Bivalvia). Sarsia, vol. 63, pp. 213- 
219 



138 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



NEPA CINEREA LINNAEUS, 1 758 (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA, 

NEPIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE 

PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2144 

By Izyaslav M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of 
Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.) 

Linnaeus, 1758, p. 440, described under the name Nepa 
cinerea the well known water-scorpion. The description was accom- 
panied by many references to the older literature. Nepa rubra was 
described by Linnaeus, 1758, on the same page as TV. cinerea but 
several Unes above. A more detailed description was published 
subsequently (Linnaeus, 1 764). 

2. Fabricius, 1794, p. 62, has used the name A'^epa rubra 
Linnaeus for a nepid from the Oriental region, which is known now 
as Laccotrephes kohlii Ferrari, 1888. The name Laccotrephes ruber 
(Linnaeus, 1758) was used for this or related species by many 
authors (the last use to my knowledge by Hafiz and Pradhan, 1949). 

3. Esaki, 1926, discovered that: a) the descriptions of 
Nepa rubra by Linnaeus, 1758, 1764, cannot be applied to any 
species of Laccotrephes and certainly apply to Nepa cinerea; b) the 
type specimen of Nepa rubra in the Linnean collection in the 
Zoological Museum of the University in Uppsala is a specimen of 
Nepa cinerea with expanded elytra and wings. 

4. Tamanini, 1973, beheved that the synonymy of A^. 
rubra and A^. cinerea estabUshed by Esaki, 1926, is wrong and the 
name rubra should be resurrected for the species of the genus 
Laccotrephes. His arguments against the synonymy with A^. cinerea 
are: (i) the remark in Linnaeus, 1758: "habitat in caHdis regionibus" 
shows that A^. rubra is an extrapalaearctic species, while A^. cinerea 
is unknown outside Palaearctica; (ii) the label under the supposed 
type specimen of A'^. rubra, according to a letter of Dr. Gustavson 
(Uppsala) to Esaki, was not written by Linnaeus himself, hence 
this specimen is possibly not the type. I think the objections of 
Tamanini cannot be taken into consideration. 

5. Concerning the type locahty of A^. rubra, it is stated in 
Linnaeus, 1764: 'Habitat — '; it is evident from this remark that 
the origin of the type specimen was unknown to Linnaeus and his 
previous statement ("habitat in caUdis regionibus") was only a 
supposition. 

6. Concerning the label of A^. rubra, the following explana- 
tion can be given. As can be seen from the photograph in Esaki, 
1926, the label is not pinned under the specimen but is written on 
the bottom of the box. The inscription is 'rubra. Mus. Gust. 
Adolphi' and is made in two different handwritings. The inscription 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 139 



'Mus. Gust. Adolphi' is certainly post-linnean, because Linnaeus 
died in 1778, whereas the Swedish King Gustav IV Adolph was 
bom in 1778. It is known (Horn & Kahle, 1936, p. 285) that the 
collection of Queen Ludovica Ulrica, from which A^. rubra was 
described, was bequeathed to Gustav IV Adolph and in 1803 was 
received by the University of Uppsala. The inscription 'Mus. Gust. 
Adolphi' is well explained by the history of this collection. It is not 
clear who made the inscription 'rubra'. Even if it was made not by 
Linnaeus himself but by somebody who rearranged the collection, 
it does not give any evidence, that the type specimen of TV. rubra 
was confused, because this specimen is in full accordance with the 
original descriptions. Hence the synonymy of A^. rubra with N. 
cinerea is supported not only by the type specimen but by the 
descriptions of Linnaeus, 1758, 1764, too, so I think this 
synonymy cannot be doubted. 

7. Acting as first reviser, Esaki has employed the 'rule of 
page- and line-priority' which had been accepted by several zoolo- 
gists and which Esaki took to be an officially accepted rule of 
nomenclature but which was never officially acknowledged except 
for a short period between 1948 and 1953 (see Bull zool. Norn. vol. 4 
pp. 328-330; Copenhagen Decisions, pp. 66-67). As a result of this 
oversight Esaki, 1926, changed the universally used name of a well- 
known insect Nepa cinerea to A^. rubra. However, Esaki, 1928, 
himself and nearly all his contemporaries subsequently used the 
name A. cinerea. Stichel, 1934, 1955; Jordan, 1950 and Poisson, 
1957 accepted Esaki's 1926 renaming and are followed in the last 
20 years by many other hemipterologists (M. Josifov, I. Lansbury, 
R. Linnavuori, N. Nieser, G. Seidenstiicker, E. Wagner and others), 
although many authors used N. cinerea as the vahd name (Macan, 
1956; Hoberlandt, 1959; South wood and -Leston, 1959; Soos, 
1963; Kerzhner and Jaczewski, 1964;Putshkova, 1969; Kanyukova, 
1973 and others) or returned to such use after the publication of 
Tamanini's paper (Ribes, 1974). 

8. I think it would be desirable to suppress under the 
plenary powers the unfortunate first reviser action of Esaki, 1926, 
so as to validate the name Nepa cinerea and thus stabilize the 
nomenclature. The following information shows that N. cinerea 
is preferable to N. rubra: — 

(i) Nepa cinerea was the binomen definitely proposed by 
Linnaeus for this well-known insect, while Nepa rubra 
was described as a distinct species owing to a mistake 
(see Esaki 1926). 

(ii) The identity oi Nepa cinerea was correctly determined 
by all zoologists while Nepa rubra was misidentified 
during more than 1 00 years. 



140 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



(iii) Nepa cinerea was used as the valid name of the species 
by all authors from 1758 up to 1926, by the absolute 
majority of authors from 1926 up to 1955 and by many 
authors from 1955 up to now, e.g. more than 200 years, 
while Nepa rubra was used by authors only in the last 
20 years. 

(iv) Nepa cinerea was described from 'Europa' and since the 
species was known to Linnaeus from Sweden, Tamanini, 
1973, restricted the type locahty to Sweden. Nepa rubra 
is described from a specimen of unknown origin. 
Recently several subspecies of A^. cinerea have been 
described from Western Mediterranean and from Siberia. 
In most cases the association of a given specimen to any 
subspecies cannot be established. If the name Nepa 
rubra were to be vaUdated this would lead to uncertainty 
in the nomenclature of subspecies. 

9. In accordance with the above, the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside the first reviser 
action of Esaki (1926); 

(2) to place the following specific name on the Official List 
of Specific Names in Zoology: 

cinerea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen 
Nepa cinerea; 

(3) to place the following specific name on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoo- 
logy: 

rubra Linnaeus, 1758, as pubUshed in the binomen 
Nepa rubra (ruled under the plenary powers in (1) 
above to be a junior synonym of Nepa cinerea Linnaeus, 
1758). 

REFERENCES 

ESAKI, T., 1926. Remarks on the Linnean species of Nepa and Laccotrephes 

(Hemiptera: Nepidae). Bull. Brooklyn Ent. Soc. vol. 21(5), pp. 

177-181 
1928. Contribution to the knowledge of the g&nus Nepa (Hemiptera: 

Nepidae). Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (10) vol. 1(4), pp. 434^41 
FABRICIUS, J. Ch., 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta IV. 

Hafniae: 472pp. 
HAFIZ, H.A. & PRADHAN, K.S., 1949. Notes on a collection of aquatic 

Rhynchota from the Patna State, Orissa, with descriptions of two new 

species. Rec. Indian Mas., Delhi vol. 45 (1947), 1949, pp. 347-376 
HOBERLANDT, L., 1959. Rad Plostice - Heteroptera. In: Klic zvireny CSR, 

vol. 3,Praha, pp. 277-381 



Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 141 



HORN, W. und KAHLE, I., 1936. Uber entomologische Sammlungen, Teil II. 

Entomol. Beihefte, Berlin-Dahlem vol. 3: pp. 1-12, 161-296, Taf. 

XVII-XXVI 
JORDAN, K.H.C., 1950. Wassenvanzen. Die Neue Brehm-Bucherei, vol. 23. 

Leipzig and Wittenberg/Lutherstadt: 39pp. 
KANYUKOVA, E.V., 1973. On the fauna and biology of water bugs (Heterop- 

tera) of Western Siberia. Entomol. obozr., Leningrad vol. 52(4), pp. 

814-820 (In Russian with Engl, summary) 
KERZHNER, I.M. and JACZEWSKI, T.L., 1964. Heteroptera. In: Keys to 

insects of the European part of the USSR, vol. 1, Leningrad, pp. 655- 

845 (in Russian) 
LINNAEUS, C, 1758. Sy sterna Naturae, edit. 10, vol. 1. Holmiae: 823pp. 

1764. Museum S.R.M. Ludovicae Ulricae Reginae. Holmiae: 720pp. 

MACAN, T.T., 1956. A revised Key to the British Water Bugs (Hemiptera 

Heteroptera). Freshw. Biol. Assoc, Sci. Publ. No. 16, pp. 1-74. 
POISSON, R., 1957. Heteropteres aquatiques. Faune de France vol. 61. Paris, 

263pp. 
PUTSHKOVA, L.V., 1969. The periphyton of the water-scorpion (Nepa 

cinerea L.). Gidrobiol. zhurn., Kiev vol. 5, No. 6: 95-96 (in Russian) 
RIBES, J., 1974. Hemipteros de la zone de Algeciras (CSdiz). III. Misc. Zool. 

Barcelona vol. 3, fasc. 4:1-9 (sep.) 
SOOS, A., 1963. Heteroptera VIII. Fauna Hungarica vol. 68. Budapest, 50pp. 
SOUTHWOOD, T.R.E. & LESION, D., 1959. Land and Water Bugs of the 

British Isles. London & New York: 436pp. 
STICHEL, W., 1934. Illustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Deutschen Wanzen, 

Lief. 10, Berlin-Fronhau und Leipzig, pp. 275-306 
STICHEL, W., 1955. Illustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Wanzen. II. Europa. 

Vol. I, Heft 3, Berlin-Hermsdorf, pp. 65-96 
TAMANINI, L., 1973. Priorita e sinonimia di Nepa cinerea Linneo e Nepa 

rubra Linneo. Regione tipica e valore della razze europee di Nepa 

cinerea Linneo, 1758. Studi Trentini Sci. Nat., Trento, Sez. B, vol. 

50(2), pp. 222-259 



142 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



EUTERMES EXITIOSUS HILL, 1925 (INSECTA, ISOPTERA)- 

PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY USE OF THE PLENARY 

POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2290 

By J.A.L. Watson & F.J. Gay {Division of Entomology , CSIRO, 
P.O. Box 1 700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia) 

The purpose of this proposal is to ask the International 
Commission to use its plenary powers to suppress a specific name 
because of the confusion that the adoption of the name would 
cause, and because it has not been used as a valid name for more 
than 50 years. 

2. Walker, 1853, p. 525, described Termes aus trails from 
two alates in the British Museum (Natural History), the first men- 
tioned from 'Adelaide' and the other from 'New Holland'. The 
Adelaide specimen was collected by A.H. Davis some time prior to 
1 844, when it was accessed from the Entomological Club into the 
collections of the Museum. The second specimen is apparently lost 
(W.A. Sands, personal communication). 

3. Hagen, 1 858, p. 1 73, identified as Termes australis alate 
material of unknown provenance in the Vienna Museum, and alates 
in his own collection from the East Indies, and described and 
figured them. The description does not agree closely with Walker's, 
and the figure (pi. 3, fig. 22) appears to be one of a kalotermitid, 
rather than a termitid. 

4. Froggatt, 1898, p. 738, redescribed alates of Termes 
australis from dried material collected at light in Adelaide, and 
figured a wing (pi. 35, fig. 1). We have not been able to trace 
Froggatt's material, and its identity is uncertain. The description 
is generally compatible with Walker's, but differs in details of 
antennal segmentation, shape of pronotum, and wing venation, 
which are more closely comparable with those of species of Copto- 
termes Wasmann (Watson & Gay, 1980). Froggatt's illustration is 
not very informative; dimensions and venation do not agree with 
the description. 

5. Desneux, 1904, p. 34, placed australis in Coptotermes, 
then regarded as a subgenus of Termes Linnaeus. He did not give 
reasons for this placement. 

6. Bugnion & Popoff, 1910, p. 121, Holmgren, 1911, p. 
73, and Mjoberg, 1920, p. 1 24, placed australis in the genus Copto- 
termes, also without comment. 

7. Hill, 1926, p. 203, tentatively regarded australis as a 
Coptotermes, and discussed the problems associated with that 
placement. Unable to examine the types, he relied on notes made 
by Sir Guy Marshall. In a letter dated 3rd December, 1925, now 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 143 



preserved in records associated with the AustraUan National Insect 
Collection, Canberra, Marshall compared 'the unique type' (presum- 
ably the second specimen, from New Holland, was already missing) 
with alates of Coptotermes acinaciformis (Froggatt) and Copto- 
termes frenchi Hill (then known as Coptotermes flavus Hill), the 
only species of Coptotermes known from Adelaide (Hill, 1942; 
Calaby & Gay, 1955). Marshall also sketched the surviving syntype. 
Hill concluded that if australis was indeed a Coptotermes, it was 
'clearly distinct from any member of the genus as yet recorded 
from this Region'; and that the pronotum was 'distinctly 
Eutermes-Wkt in outline'. The sketch, preserved with Marshall's 
letter, is a reasonable likeness of the Adelaide syntype, and 
confirms Hill's opinion (Watson & Gay, 1 980). 

8. Hill, 1 942, p. 1 0, did not include australis in his account 
of the Australian Isoptera, on the grounds that it could not 'be 
identified with any more recently described species', and referred to 
Hill, 1926, p. 203. Snyder, 1949, p. 348, also regarded australis as 
a species that could not be classified, and provided a bibliography 
of it. 

9. Watson «& Gay, 1980, pp. 19-22, figs. 1-2, re-examined 
the Adelaide syntype of Termes australis, designated it the lecto- 
type of the species, and showed that Termes australis is a senior 
subjective synonym of Eu termes exitiosus Hill, 1925. 

10. Hill, 1925, p. 222, figs. 30-35, described Eutermes 
exitiosus from complete nest series from Ludlow, Western Australia, 
and other localities in the south-west of that State, and from South 
Australia and Victoria. In 1942, p. 214, figs. 111-113, he 
redescribed the species, including material from New South Wales 
and Queensland, and commented on its biology and economic 
importance. 

1 1. Snyder, 1949, p. 276, transferred exitiosus to the genus 
Nasutitermes Dudley. 

12. This species is one of the most extensively studied of 
the Australian termites, and causes substantial damage to timber in 
service. More than 50 papers, involving more than 20 authors, have 
been pubUshed from our laboratory alone, dealing with its taxo- 
nomy, general biology, development, behaviour, economic impor- 
tance, and the resistance of materials. Other papers have been pub- 
lished from other laboratories, some directed specifically to non- 
entomologists involved in termite control. All these publications 
have referred to the species as exitiosus. The following fifteen 
references serve as examples, and satisfy the requirements of Article 
79b: Holdaway, Gay & Greaves, 1935 (population of colonies); 
Fyfe & Gay, 1938 (relative humidity in mounds); Hill, 1942 (taxo- 
nomy, general biology); Holdaway & Gay, 1948 (temperatures in 



144 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1 981 



mounds); Gay, Greaves, Holdaway & Wetheriy, 1955 (standard 
techniques for laboratory testing of materials); Gay, Greaves, 
Holdaway & Wetheriy, 1957 (standard techniques for field testing 
of materials); Moore, 1964 (pheromones); Rudman, 1965 (effects 
of extractives from resistant timber); Gay «&. Wetheriy, 1969 (resis- 
tance of plastics); Gibbs, Gay & Wetheriy, 1970 (termite virus); Lee 
& Wood, 1971 (termites and soils); McMahan and Watson, 1975 
(development of castes); Kriston, Watson & Eisner, 1977 (behaviour 
of soldiers); McMahan, 1977 (polyethism); and Watson, Ruyooka & 
Howick, 1978 (caste composition and feeding activity). Because of 
the synonymy (paragraph 9 above) and the extent and diversity of 
non-taxonomic usage of the name exitiosus, we would prefer that 
the name australis be suppressed outright, rather than that its junior 
subjective synonym exitiosus be given nomenclatural precedence. 
13. We therefore ask the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name 
australis Walker, 1853, as published in the binomen 
Termes australis, for the purposes of the Law of Priority 
but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology the specific name exitiosus Hill, 1925, as 
published in the binomen Eutermes exitiosus; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaHd 
Specific Names in Zoology the name australis Walker, 
1853, as published in the binomen Termes australis, 
and as suppressed by use of the plenary powers in ( 1 ) 
above. 

REFERENCES 

BUGNION, E. & POPOFF, N., 1910. Le termite a latex de Ceylan Coptotermes 

travians. Mim. Soc. zool. Fr. vol. 23, pp. 107-123 
CALABY, J. & GAY, F.J., 1956. The distribution and biology of the genus 

Coptotermes (Isoptera) in Western Australia. Aust. J. Zool vol. 4, pp. 

19-39 
DESNEUX, J., 1904. Isoptera, Fam, Termitidae. Genera Insectorum vol. 25, 

pp. 1-52 
FROGGATT, W.W., 1898. Australian Termitidae. Part III. Proc. linn. Soc. 

A^.5.R/. vol. 22, pp. 721-758 
FYFE, R.V. & GAY, F.J., 1938. The humidity of the atmosphere and the 

moisture conditions within mounds of Eutermes exitiosus Hill. Coun. 

sci. ind. Res. Aust. Pamphlet No. 82, 22 pp. 
GAY, F.J., GREAVES, T., HOLDAWAY, F.G. & WETHERLY, A.H., 1955. 

Standard laboratory colonies of termites for evaluating the resistance of 

timber, timber preservatives, and other materials to termite attack. Bull. 

Commonw. scient. ind. Res. Org. No. 277, 60 pp. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 145 



1 957. The development and use of field testing techniques with termites 

in Australia. 5w//. Commonw. scient. ind. Res. Org. No. 280, 31 pp. 
& WETHERLY, A.H., 1 969. Laboratory studies of termite resistance V. 

The termite resistance of plastics. CSIRO Aust. Div. Ent. tech. Pap. No. 

10,49 pp. 
GIBBS, A.J., GAY, F.J. & WETHERLY, A.H., 1970. A possible paralysis virus 

of termites. Virology vol. 4, pp. 1063-1065 
HAGEN, H., 1858. Monographic der Termiten. Linn. Ent. vol. 12, pp. 1-342 
HILL, G.F., 1925. Termites from the Australian region: descriptions of new 

species and hitherto undescribed castes. Proc. ray. Sac. Victoria (N.S.) 

vol. 37, pp. 206-229 
1926. Australian termites (Isoptera). Notes on Stolotermes, Calotermes 

and Coptotermes, with descriptions of new species. Proc. roy. sac. 

Victoria (N.S.) vol. 38, pp. 192-214 
1942. Termites f Isoptera) from the Australian region. Council for 

Scientific and Industrial Research, Melbourne, 479 pp. 
HOLDAWAY, E.G. & GAY, F.J., 1948. Temperature studies of the habitat of 

Eutermes exitiosus with special reference to the temperatures within 

the mound, ^w^r. J. set Res. (B) vol. 1, pp. 464-493 
HOLDAWAY, E.G., GAY, F.J. & GREAVES, T. 1935. The termite population 

of a mound colony of Eutermes exitiosus Hill. /. Coun. sci. ind. Res. 

Aust. vol. 8, pp. 42-46 
HOLMGREN, N., 1911. Termitenstudien 2. Systematik der Termiten. Die 

FamUien Mastotermitidae, Protermitidae und Mesotermitidae. K. 

Svenska Vet.-Akad. Handl. vol. 46(6), pp. 1-86 
KRISTON, I., WATSON, J.A.L. & EISNER, T., 1977. Non-combative behaviour 

of large soldiers of Nasutitermes exitiosus (HUl): an analytical study. 

Insectes sociaux vol. 24, pp. 103-1 1 1 
LEE, K.E. & V/OOD, T.G., 1971. Termites and soils. Academic Press, London 

and New York, x + 25 1 pp. 
McMAHAN, E.A., 1977. Mound repair and foraging polyethism in workers of 

Nasutitermes exitiosus (HUl): (Isoptera: Termitidae). Insectes sociaux 

vol. 24, pp. 225-232 
' ^ WATSON, J.A.L. , 1975. Non-reproductive castes and their develop- 
ment in Nasutitermes exitiosus (Hill) (Isoptera). Insectes sociaux vol. 
_._ 22, pp. 183-198 
MJOBERG, E., 1920. Results of Dr. E. Mjoberg's Swedish scientific expedi- 
tions to Australia 1910-1913. 19. Isoptera. Ark. Zool. vol. 12(15), pp. 

1-128 
MOORE, B.P., 1964. Volatile terpenes from Nasutitermes soldiers (Isoptera, 

Termitidae)./. Insect Physiol, vol. 10, pp. 371-375 
RUDMAN, P., 1965. The causes of natural durability in timber Pt. XVII. The 

causes of decay and termite resistance in Callitris columellaris F. Muell. 

Holzforschung vol. 19, pp. 52-57 
SNYDER, T.E., 1949. Catalog of the termites (Isoptera) of the world. 

Smithson, misc. Collns vol. 1 12, pp. 1-490 
WALKER, F., 1853. List of the specimens of neuropterous insects in the 
collection of the British Museum. Part 3 (Termitides). British Museum, 
London, pp. 501-529 



146 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



WATSON, J.A.L. & GAY, F.J., 1980. The identities of Termes australis Walker 
and Termes fumipennis Walker (Isoptera). J. Australian entomol. Soc, 
vol. 19, pp. 19-25 

RUYOOKA, D.B.A. & HOWICK, CD., 1978. The effect of caste com- 
position on wood consumption in cultures of Nasutitermes exitiosus 
(Hill) (Isoptera: Termitidae). Bull. ent. Res. vol. 68, pp. 687-694 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 147 



COCCUS LINNAEUS, 1 758 AND PARTHENOLECANIUM 

SULC, 1908 (INSECTA, HOMOPTERA, COCCIDAE): 

PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES UNDER THE 

PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2125 

By Evelyna M. Danzig & Izyaslav M. Kerzhner {Zoological 
Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199164, USSR) 

A preliminary discussion of the problems discussed in this 
application has been given by Morrison & Morrison, 1966, and 
Danzig, 1967. These problems should be solved so as to stabilize the 
nomenclature of scale insects of great economic importance. 

2. The genus Coccus was described by Linnaeus, 1758, p. 
455, with 17 originally included species. The genus is the type of 
the family COCCIDAE Fallen, 1814, which was the first family of 
scale insects to be named. Three separate originally included species 
were designated as type species in the 19th century (for several 
invalid type designations, see Morrison & Morrison, 1 966). 

3. Curtis, 1838, p. 717, designated Coccus cacti Linnaeus, 
1758, p. 457, as type species. Linnaeus's species is now placed in 
the genus Pro tortonia (Family MONOPHLEBIDAE Signoret, 1875). 
It is clear, however, that Curtis misidentified that species and that 
his figures and descriptive remarks refer to Dactylopius coccus O. 
Costa, 1835 (Family DACTYLOPIIDAE Signoret, 1875). 

4. Westwood, 1840, p. 447, designated Coccus ilicis 
Linnaeus, 1758, p. 455 as type species. This species is currently 
referred to the genus Kermes (Family KERMESIDAE Signoret, 
1875). 

5. Cockerell, 1899, p. 260, designated Coccus phalaridis 
Linnaeus, 1758, p. 456, as type species. The name of this species 
is regarded as a nomen dubium by modem coccidologists. 

6. None of these three type-species designations was 
accepted by contemporaries, and none is accepted today. Accep- 
tance of any of them would bring about very undesirable changes in 
the names of genera, tribes, subfamilies and families of scale insects. 

7. Femald, 1902, p. 232; 1903, p. 167, designated Coccus 
hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758, p. 455, as type species of Coccus, 
wrongly believing that this designation had been made by Sulzer, 
1761 . Sulzer, however, had only cited the species as an example of 
Coccus. Although some aberrant points of view on the type species 
of Coccus appeared in the literature approximately up to 1930, 
Femald's type designation has received general recognition and is 
followed by all modem coccidologists without exception. We think 
that it would be the general wish of coccidologists that Fernald's 
designation be vahdated under the plenary powers. 



148 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



8. The genus Lecanium was described by Burmeister, 
1835, p. 69. Coccus hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758 was designated as 
type species by Cockerell, 1893, p. 49. The implication that 
Lecanium is a junior objective synonym of Coccus is accepted by 
many modem authors, either directly (Borchsenius, 1957; de Lotto, 
1965; Danzig, 1967; Williams, 1969), or indirectly (Schmutterer, 
1952; Rehacek, 1960; Boratynsky, 1970; Koteja, 1974, etc.). 

9. Another tendency is to retain the name Lecanium, 
following wide use in previous Hterature, for a broad generic 
concept mostly uniting the genera Eulecanium Cockerell, 1893 and 
Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908 (Sanders, 1909; Sulc, 1932; 
Takahashi, 1955; Richards, 1958; Phillips, 1965; Kawecki, 1967; 
Williams & Kosztarab, 1972, etc.). The supporters of this view do 
not indicate a type species for Lecanium as understood in this 
sense. It is not fully clear what they prefer: validation of Lecanium 
instead of the large and economically important Eulecanium, or in 
place of the smaller Parthenolecanium. The only exception is the 
paper by Sanders, 1909, in which Chermes persicae Fabricius, 
1776, now referred to Parthenolecanium, was designated as type 
species. This was one of the species originally included in Lecanium 
by Burmeister, but the designation is more recent than that made 
by Cockerell. 

1 0. In order to ascertain which course of action is preferred 
by specialists, we wrote to eight coccidologists. Professor Z. Kawecki 
(Warsaw) took the view that Lecanium should be retained because, 
as Sanders stated in 1909, 'it is impossible to eliminate Lecanium 
from our Coccid nomenclature', but he did not say what species 
should be designated as type. Professor A. Balachowsky (Paris), Dr. 
K. Boratynski (London), Professor M. Kosztarab (Blacksburg), Dr. 
J. Koteja (Cracow), Mr. G. de Lotto (Pretoria), Dr. D. Miller 
(Beltsville) and Dr D. Williams (London) all held that Lecanium 
should be treated as a junior synonym of Coccus. Our own view is 
that to retain Lecanium now would introduce more confusion than 
stability in the nomenclature of scale insects, and we recommend its 
rejection. 

1 1 . The genus Eulecanium was described by Cockerell, 
1893, p. 54, originally as a subgenus of Lecanium. The type species, 
by original designation, is Coccus tiliae Linnaeus, 1 758, p. 456. The 
name is used in a broad sense to include Parthenolecanium as a 
synonym of Lecanium by those workers who prefer to retain this 
last name. 

1 2. The genus Pathenolecanium was described by Sulc, 
1908, p. 36. The type species, by original designation, is Coccus 
coryli Linnaeus, 1758, p. 456. The genus is differentiated from 
Eulecanium by a large number of significant characters 



Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



149 



^^e^^TlTr^^^'^)'^^''^^^ ^^^^' ^"^ others). However, the 
Marcha^ 1908 ?r7J ,V^''^ differently by different authors. 
™ V . f' l""^^^^^ ^* ^^ ^ senior synonym of C. tiliae Linnaeus 
1758, while §ulc 1908, 1932, treated it as a senior synonym of 
Lecanium corni Bouche, 1844. The resulting instabihty of nomen- 
clature can be seen from the following comparison (other exaroles 
are discussed by Kawecki, 1 958a 1 958b)- examples 



Marchal, 1908 
Sulc, 1908 
Sulc, 1932 
Borchsenius, 1957 
Richards, 1958 
Kawecki, 1958a, 1958b 
Reha5ek, 1960 
Phillips, 1965 

Williams & Kosztarab 1 972 
Danzig, 1972 



Parthenolecanium 

corni 

coryli 

coryli (= corni) 

corni 

coryli (= corni) 

corni 

corni 

coryli (= corni) 

corni 

corni 



Eulecanium 

coryli (= tiliae)^ 

capreae (= tiliaeP 

tiliae 

tiliae^ 

tiliae 

coryli (= tiliae) 

coryli 

not mentioned 

not mentioned 

tiliae (= coryli) 



NOTES 

1 . In this paper Marchal as first reviser gave priority to C. coryli over tiliae 

nsT'"" ' '^' ^ ' ^"^^^ ^^"^"y'" °f ^- ''^'^^ Linnaeus', 

'■ tZn',ui^:'X' " '''^ ""' " ' '"^'"^" """""' ^^ '""^ -"- °^ 

in 1 7<;8^ u,^^'''?^/'"^^' ^""^ ^- ^'^^^ ^^^e established by Linnaeus 
in 1758 without descnptions, but with references to descriDtions 
and figures given by Reaumur, 1738. It is well known ha 
R6aumur s and Linnaeus's collections of scale insects cannot be 
found and may never have existed, because descnpf'ons Tere^p^^^^ 
pared from livmg material. Sulc, 1932, concluded from a^mdy of 

ideS'withX'/r" r' -^^^""^ ^^^^ ^- -^^^'- was cert Jn?y 
laentical with Parthenolecanium corni but not with Eulecanium 
tiliae. Rule's view was criticised by Kawecki 1958a 1958h T 
agree with Kawecki that RSaumur's descrip^on and figures are n^? 
he°ilen mv'of r "' identification. Marchal and KLel^sZlTon 

C. coryli, the appbcation of the names C tiliae Linnaeus and 
Lecanium corni Bouche has been the same in all works 

14. As the name Coccus coryli has been a source of con- 
fusion for so long, and as the doubtful identity of the spedes ^a 



150 Bull, zool Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



possible cause of endless discussion and instability of nomen- 
clature, we ask for the suppression of that name under the plenary 
powers and for the designation of Lecanium corni Bouche as type 
species of Parthenolecanium. 

15. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature is accordingly asked: 

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers 

(a) to suppress the specific name coryli Linnaeus, 
1758, as pubhshed in the binomen Coccus coryli, 
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for 
those of the Law of Homonymy ; 

(b) to set aside all designations of type species for the 
genus Coccus Linnaeus, 1758, made prior to the 
ruling here requested and having done so to desig- 
nate Coccus hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758, to be the 
type species of that genus; 

(c) to set aside all designations of type species for the 
genus Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908, made prior to 
the ruling here requested and having done so to 
designate Lecanium corni Bouch6 to be the type 
species of that genus; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Coccus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine), type 
species, by designation under the plenary powers 
in (1) (b) above. Coccus hesperidum Linnaeus, 
1758; 

(b) Eulecanium Cockerell, 1893 (gender: neuter), type 
species, by original designation. Coccus tiliae 
Linnaeus, 1758; 

(c) Parthenolecanium §ulc, 1908 (gender: neuter), 
type species, by designation under the plenary 
powers in (1) (c) above, Lecanium corni Bouch6, 
1844; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) hesperidum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the 
binomen Coccus hesperidum (specific name of 
type species oi Coccus Linnaeus, 1 758); 

(b) tiliae Linnaeus, 1758, as pubhshed in the binomen 
Coccus tiliae (specific name of type species of 
Eulecanium QocktreW, 1893); 

(c) comi Bouche, 1844, as pubhshed in the binomen 
Lecanium comi (specific name of type species of 
Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908); 

(4) to place the generic name Lecanium Burmeister, 1835 (a 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 151 



junior objective synonym of Coccus Linnaeus, 1758) on 
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic 
Names in Zoology; 
(5) to place the specific name coryli Linnaeus, 1758, as 
published in the binomen Coccus coryli, and as 
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, 
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Specific 
Names in Zoology. 



REFERENCES 

BORATYNSKI, K. 1970. On some species of "Lecanium" (Homoptera, 

Coccidae) in the collection of the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna; 

with description and illustration of the immature stages oi Parthenole- 

canium persicae. Ann. naturhistor. Mus. Wien vol. 74, pp. 63-76 
BORCHSENIUS, N.S. 1957. Coccoidea. Coccidae. Fauna of the USSR vol. 9, 

n.s. 66,494 pp. 
BURMEISTER, H. 1835. Handbuch der Entomologie vol. 2, BerUn, 400 pp. 
COCKERELL, T.D.A. 1893. Notes on Lecanium, with a list of the West Indian 

species. Trans. Amer. entomol. Soc. vol. 20, pp. 49-56 
1899. Some notes on Coccidae. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, pp. 

259-275 
CURTIS, J. 1838. British Entomology, vol. 15. London, pp. 674-721 
DANZIG. E.M. 1967. Contributions to the knowledge of the Coccidae 

(Homoptera) of the Primorye Territory. Trudy zool. Inst. Akad. Nauk 

SSSR vol. 41, pp. 139-172 
1972. Suborder Coccoidea. In: Insects and mites pests of agricultural 

crops vol. 1, Leningrad, pp. 189-221 
DE LOTTO, G. 1965. On some Coccidae (Homoptera) chiefly from Africa. 

Bull. br. Mus. (nat. Hist.) Entomol. vol. 16(4), pp. 177-239 
FERNALD, M.E. 1902. On the genus Coccus L. Canad. Entomol. vol. 34, 

pp. 232-233 
1903. A catalogue of the Coccidae of the world. Spec. Bull. Mass. agr. 

5ra. No. 88,360 pp. 
GILIOMEE, J.H. 1967. Morphology and taxonomy of adult males of the 

family Coccidae (Homoptera: Coccoidea). Bull. br. Mus. (nat. Hist.) 

Entomol., Suppl. vol. 7, pp. 1-168 
KAWECKI, L. 1958a. Studies on the g&mis Lecanium Burm. IV. Materials to a 

monograph of the brown scale, Lecanium corni Bouch6, Marchal 

(female nee male) (Homoptera, Coccoidea, Lecaniidae). Ann. Zool. 

Warszawa, vol. 17(9), pp. 135-245 
KAWECKI, L. 1958b. Studies on the genus Lecanium Burm. Part V. The nut 

or thorn scale - Lecanium coryli (L.) sensu Marchal nee §ulc (Homop- 
tera, Coccoidea, Lecaniidae). Polskie Pismo Entomol. vol. 27(4), pp. 

40-69 
1 967. Studies on the genus Lecanium Burm. VI. Lecanium smreczynskii. 

Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci., CI. V, vol. 15, Ser. Biol., pp. 687-689 



152 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 2, April 1981 



KOTEJA, J. 1974. On the phylogeny and classification of the scale insects 
(Homoptera, Coccinea) (discussion based on the morphology of the 
mouthparts). Acta Zool. Cracov. vol. 19(14), pp. 267-325 

LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Sy sterna naturae. Edition 10, 823 pp. 

MARCHAL, P. 1908. Notes sur les Cochenilles de I'Europe et du Nord de 
rAfrique.^««. Soc. entomol France vol. 77, pp. 223-309 

MORRISON, H. and MORRISON, E.R. 1966. An annotated list of generic 
names of the scale insects. U.S. Dep. Agric. misc. Publ. No. 1015, 
206 pp. 

PHILLIPS, J.H.H. 1965. Notes on species of Lecanium Burmeister (Homop- 
tera: Coccoidea) in the Niagara Peninsula, Ontario, with a description 
of a new species. Canad. Entomol. vol. 97(3), pp. 231-238 

REAUMUR, R.A.F. de 1738. Mimoires pour servir a I'histoire des insectes, 
yo\. 4. Imprim. Royale, 36 et 636 pp., 44 tab. 

REHACEK, J. 1960. Fauna puclic (Coccidae) Slovenska. £/o/. Price, Bratislava, 
vol. 6(12), 89 pp. 

RICHARDS, W.R. 1958. Identities of species of Lecanium Burmeister in 
Canada (Homoptera: Coccoidea). Canad. Entomol. vol. 90(5), pp. 305- 
313 

SANDERS, J.G. 1909. The identity and synonymy of some of our soft scale 
insects. Journ. econ. Entomol. vol. 2, pp. 428-448 

SCHMUTTERER, H. 1952. Die Okologie der Cocciden (Homoptera, 
Coccoidea) Frankens. Z. angew. Entomol. vol. 33(4), pp. 544-584 

SULC, K. 1908. Towards the better knowledge of the genus Lecanium. 
Entomol. monthly Mag., vol. 44, p. 36 

1932. Ceskoslovenske druhy rodu puklice (gn. Lecanium, Coccidae, 

Homoptera). Acta Soc. Sci. nat. Morav. vol. 7(5), pp. 1-134 

SULZER, J.H. \16\.Die Kennzeichen der Insecten. Zurich, 203 pp. 

TAKAHASHI, R. 1955. Lecanium in Japan (Homoptera, Coccidae). Trans. 
Shikoku entomol. Soc. vol. 4, pp. 69-78 

WESTWOOD, J.O. 1839-1840. An introduction to the modern classification 
of insects; founded on the natural habits and corresponding organisation 
of the different families, vol. 2. A. Spottiswoode, London, 587 pp. Also 
\^3%-\M0, Synopsis of the genera of British insects, 158 pp. 

WILLIAMS, D.J. 1969. The family-group names of the scale insects. Bull. br. 
Mus. (nat. Hist.) Entomol. vol. 23(38), 3 15-341 

WILLIAMS, M.L. and KOSZTARAB, M. 1972. Morphology and systematics of 
the Coccidae of Virginia with notes on their biology (Homoptera: 
Coccoidea). Bull. Res. Div. Virginia polytechn. Inst. St. Univ. No. 74, 
pp. 1-215 






Readers of the Bulletin are reminded that the main regular source 
of income to finance the work of the Commission comes from sales 
of this periodical, and that this is insufficient to meet the needs of 
zoologists for the services provided by the Commission and to 
maintain the office at an efficient level. Help in the form of dona- 
tions and bequests will, therefore, be received with gratitude. 

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to 
express its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of 
the British Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the 
Commission. 



© 1981 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 
Printed in England by INPRINT OF LUTON (Designers & Printers) LTD. 



Volume 38, Part 3 

PP.i-iv,153-228 ..-.^> .</^v ISSN 0007-5167 

30th July 1981 






On. x^ 



OGY 




V 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 

The Official Organ of 

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



LONDON 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
c/o Bntish Museum (Natural History) 
Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD 

Price £10.00 

(All rights reserved) 



jn MAi. Hisr. *^«! 
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSI ON 

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATUIE " ^ AUG J98I 

VoPURCHASFDA 
A. The Officers of the CommissioilK^<^ y* > 

President: Dr. C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab:,1J^DA c/o U.S. 

National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.). 
Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, 

S-223 62, Lund, Sweden). 
Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell 

Road, London SW7 5BD). 
Assistant Secretary: Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), 

Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD). 



B. The Members of the Commission 

(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) 

Prof. T. HABE (Department of Marine Science, Tokai University, 1000 Orido, 

Shimizu City 414 Japan (20 February 1972) Marine Biology 
Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, 

Edinburgh EHl IJF, Scotland) (20 February 1 972) /'CoM/zc/Z/orj MoUusca 
Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London 

SW7 5BD) (20 February 1972) (Assistant Secretary) Lepidoptera 
Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, 

Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972) 

Neotropical Hymenoptera 
Prof. Enrico TORTONESE (Istituto Zooprofilattico, Lungo Bisagno Dalmazia 

45A, 16141. Genova, Italy) (30 September, 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata 
Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, 

Sweden) (30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology 
Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de 

Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) 

Echinoidea; Asteroidea 
Prof. E. BINDER (Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, 

Switzerland) (30 September 1972) Mollusca 
Prof. Harold E. YOKES (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New 

Orleans, Louisiana 70118, U.S.A.) (30 September 1972) Mollusca 
Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Postbus 9517, 

2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) 

Crustacea 
Dr. G. BERNARDI (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 bis rue de Buff on, 

75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Lepidoptera 
Prof. C. DUPUIS (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 43 rue Cuvier, 75231, 

Paris, Cedex 05 France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera 
Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Instytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk, 

ul. Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975) Coleoptera 
Prof. H.E. WELCH (Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, 

Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2 Canada) (17 March 1976) Nematoda 
Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 

Hamburg 13. Germany) (29 September 1976) Arachnida, Myriapoda 



u 

Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (College Fellow in Life Sciences, School of Applied Science, 

Canberra College of Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Eelconnen, A.C.T. 

2616, Australia) (29 September 1976) (Councillor) Mammalia: Recent 

and Fossil 
Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA cjo U.S. 

National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (29 September 

1976) (President) Diptera 
Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) 

(29 September 1976) Reptilia; E D P Methods 
Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitdtsgebiet 

Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) (27 December 1978) Palaeontology 
Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of 

Tromso, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsb, Norway) (27 December 1978) 

Parasitology 
Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN, (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 

B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology 
Dr. P.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum of Natural History , Washington, D.C. 

20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) OctocoraUia; Systematics 
Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 

20742, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics 
Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, 

London SW7 5BD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology 
Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, 

Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) MoUusm, Crustacea 
Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN, (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University 
of Turku. SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida 



INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



A. The Members of the Trust 

Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) 

Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) 

Dr. J.H. Callomon, F.R.I.C. 

Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. 

Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. 

Prof. J. Forest 

Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. 

Dr. R.H. Hedley 

Dr. N.E. Hickin 

Dr. L.B. Holthuis 

Prof. Dr. O. Kraus 

Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S. 

Dr. C.W. Sabrosky (ex officio) 

Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. 

Dr. C.A. Wright (Observer) 

B. The Officer of the Trust 
Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) 



CONTENTS 

"^'IS nZf/' ^' ''" International Congress of Zoology: **'"' 

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published 

/u^ '"^^^ ^"'^^"" ("f Zoological Nomenclature . l„ 

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain 

(c) Receipt of new applications ]ll 

Special Announcements ^^^ 

154 

Comments 

On the authorship of the family name METRIDIIDAE (Coelenterata- 
Anthozoa)(R.B. Williams) l^^oeienterata. 

On SPHAERIIDAE in Mollusca and Insecta: proposals to remove the ^^^ 

On ,u^'"^"y'"y ( V- 'P^"^'^^' ^•^- StarobogatSv & J.G J Kufper) 157 

HuddTesfon) P^''""°'"^"<^'^»"^^^ f"«her comments (R^W 

161 

Commission Reports 

Constitution. Article 3: proposed new method for determining the term 
of service of members of the Commission. Report ™f 
Subcommittee appointed at Helsinki (The Secretary) ia-. 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: deferment' of 
(ThrSecrSarT"^"'^ Provisions to regulate paranomenclature 
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: result of vote on ^^ 

SecretS ) '"^''^"^'^^ amendments (fifth instalment) (The 

^"^ 168 

Opinions 

^^^-'^^L^iSioT^hiry^j" """-- ^--- - — • 

"""""^/^vI'a "ir'T'' '"'"'" Young &■ Bird, 1828: and '"" 

nir r . ^"bconcinna Davidson, 1852 (Brachiopoda): 
designation of neotypes ' 

Opinion 1184. Dttylenchus Filipjev,' 1936; ' given ■nomenclatural ^'^ 



n„- • '^ , , oc f ^^ ^^'""otylenchus Micoletzky, 1922 (Nematoda) i S9 

Opinion 1185. Simrothiella Pilsbry, 1898 (Mollusca, Solenogas res) 

designation of a type species cnugastresj. 

"""""conii^v'ed ^""'''''^''"^ " -" Meyer: [1852] "(Reptilia) ''' 

°'''"'°d"esiln';- ''^''f''^" ^""^^ * '^''''^'' '»840 (Ophiuroidea): ''' 

designation of type species '^ 



New and revived cases 

TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conservation (W. 

Presch) 194 

Generic name Ahuautlea de la Llave, 1832 (Insecta, Heteroptera, 

Corixidae): proposed suppression (A. Jansson) 197 

Proposed use of the plenary powers to grant precedence to the family- 
group name EPHYDRIDAE over HYDRELLIIDAE (Insecta, 
Diptera)(W.N. Mathis) 201 

Nobis capsiformis Germar, [1838] (Insecta, Heteroptera, Nabidae): 
proposed conservation under the plenary powers (I.M. 
Kerzhner) 205 

Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, and 
Campamdaria Lamarck, 1816 (Coelenterata, Hydroida): 
proposed designations of type species by use of the plenary 
powers, and comments on related genera (P.F.S. Cornelius) . 208 

Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799 (Insecta, Plecoptera): additional steps 

needed to conserve this name (The Secretary) 221 

Nomioides Schenck, 1866: proposed designation of type species 
Insecta, Hymenoptera, Halictidae). (Y.A. Pesenko & I.M. 
Kerzhner) 225 

Corrections to data of three family-group names of butterflies on the 

official list (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (C.F. Cowan) 228 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Volume 38, part 3 (pp. 153-228), 30 July, 1981 



NOTICES 

(a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal circum- 
stances the Commission may start to vote on applications published 
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the 
publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to 
comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to 
send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the 
Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach 
the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. 

(b) Possible use of the plenary powers. The possible use by 
the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following 
applications published in the present part of the Bulletin (those 
marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b 
and 79b): 

*(1) TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (ReptiUa, Sauria): proposed 
conservation. Z.N.(S.) 1920. W. Presch. 

(2) Ahautlea de la Llave, 1832 (Insecta, Heteroptera, 
Corixidae): proposed suppression under the plenary 
powers. Z.N.(S.) 2299. A. Jansson. 

(3) To grant precedence to the family-group name 
EPHYDRIDAE over HYDRELLIIDAE (Insecta, 
Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 2334. W.N. Mathis. 

*(4) Nabis capsiformis Germar, [1838] (Insecta, 
Heteroptera, Nabidae): proposed conservation. 
Z.N.(S.) 2147. I.M. Kerzhner. 

(5) Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, 
and Campanularia Lamarck, 1816 (Coelenterata, 
Hydroida): proposed designations of type species and 
comments on related genera. Z.N.(S.) 2326. P.F.S. 
Cornelius. 

(6) Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799 (Insecta, Plecoptera): 
additional steps needed to conserve this name. Z.N.(S.) 
1799. The Secretary. 

(7) Nomioides Schenck, 1866: proposed designation of type 
species (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Halictidae). 
Z.N.(S.)2178. Y.A. Pesenko & I.M. Kerzhner. 

(8) Corrections to data of three family-group names of 
butterflies on the official list (Insecta, Lepidoptera). 
Z.N.(S.)2187.C.F. Cowan. 

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new 
applications have been received since the publication of vol. 38(2) 



154 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



on 30 April, 1981. Those marked with an asterisk involve the 
application of Articles 23a-b and 79b. 

(1) UROPLATINI in Amphibia & Coleoptera: proposals to 
remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2373. H.M. Smith. 

(2) Humerobates Sellnick, 1929 (Acari, Oribatei, 
HUMEROBATIDAE): proposal to designate type 
species. Z.N.(S.) 2374. R.A. Norton. 

*(3) Dromophis Peters, 1869 (Reptilia: Serpentes): proposed 

validation. Z.N.(S.) 2375. D.G. Broadley. 
(4) Paracanthonchus Micoletzky, 1924 (Nematoda): 

proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2376. N. 

Smol, M. Vincx & J. Sharma. 
*(5) Ichnotropis Peters, 1854 (Reptilia: Sauria): proposed 

validation. Z.N.(S.) 2377. W.R. Branch & D.G. 

Broadley. 
*(6) Scarabaeus Linnaeus, 1758 and Dynastes MacLeay, 1819 

(Insecta, Coleoptera); proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 

2378. J. Baraud & F. Chalumeau. 
*(7) Syphonosoma cumanense Keferstein, 1867 (Sipuncula): 

proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2379. E.B. Cutler. 



SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS 

NOTICE OF IMPENDING VACANCIES ON THE 

COMMISSION 

This notice is issued under Article 4 of the Constitution of the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and 
announces the names, nationalities and fields of specialisation of the 
following members of the Commission whose terms of service will 
expire at the close of the next meeting (in 1982) of the Division of 
Zoology of the International Union of Biological Sciences. 
HABE, Prof. T., Japan. Marine Biology 
HEPPELL, Mr D. , United Kingdom. Mollusca 
NYE, Dr I.W.B., United Kingdom. Lepidoptera 
WILLINK, Prof. A., Argentina. Neotropical Hymenoptera 
TORTONESE, Prof. E., Italy. Pisces; Echinodermata. 

Article 2b of the Constitution states: The members of the 
Commission shall be eminent zoologists, irrespective of nationality, 
with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, who are known 
to have an interest in zoological nomenclature'. Nominations are 
now invited for successors having these qualifications to be elected 
to the places vacated. The retiring members may themselves be 
nominated, but Dr Nye and Professor Tortonese have intimated 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 155 



that they do not wish their names to be put forward. The Council, 
acting under Article 3b, has decided that Professor Habe, Mr 
Heppell and Professor WiUink are eligible to be nominated. 

The Commission wishes to receive more nominations than 
there are vacancies, so as to be able to make a genuine choice 
between candidates and to maintain a balanced geographical and 
disciplinary representation. 



THE INTERNATIONAL CODE ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 

It is with regret that we announce a delay in the printing of the 
3rd edition of the Code. It is still hoped that this will appear before 
August 1982. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

June 1981 



THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 

The Trust (Registered Charity No. 211944) will shortly be 
launching a world-wide appeal for more funds for the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 

The Commission has to plan for expansion to meet the 
growing demand for its work and for the needs of zoologists in the 
developing countries. It must be able to maintain its reliable service 
to all zoologists and paleontologists. 

Readers are invited to help make this forthcoming appeal a 
success by agreeing to assist in one or more of the following ways: 

1 — to give a donation 

2 — to subscribe to the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- 

clature 

3 — to supply the name and address of anyone they know 

who may be willing to give financial assistance or to 

whom an approach may be made. 
The address to send help in the way suggested, or for any 
further information, is: 

Dr F.G.W. Jones, Managing Director and Secretary, 
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 
c/o British Museum (Natural History), 
Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, United Kingdom 



156 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FAMILY NAME METRIDIIDAE 
(COELENTERATA: ANTHOZOA) 

Z.N.(S.)2263 
(see vol. 36, part 1 , pp. 53-56) 

By R.B. Williams (2, Carrington Place, Tring, Herts., HP23 SLA) 

The family name METRIDIIDAE has been applied both to anthozoans 
(Coelenterata) and to copepods (Arthropoda). Dunn and Hulsemann (1979) 
have suggested a satisfactory solution to this problem of homonymy but the 
name METRIDIIDAE applied to anthozoans and recommended for inclusion 
in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology should be attributed 
not to Carlgren (1893) as stated, but to Gosse (1858). 

2. Dunn and Hulsemann (1979) noted Gosse 's (1859a) use of the 
name METRIDIADAE but regarded it as unavailable since it is apparently a 
nomen nudum. However, Gosse's book 'Actinologia Britannica. A History 
of the British Sea-Anemones and Corals. With Coloured Figures of the Species 
and Principal Varieties' which bears the date 1860 on its title page is a second 
issue of 'Actinologia Britannica: A History of the British Sea-Anemones and 
Madrepores. With Coloured Figures of All the Species' which was pubhshed in 
twelve parts during 1858 and 1859 (Williams, in preparation) and contains the 
first valid use of the name METRIDIADAE. 

3. The name METRIDIADAE, with no definition, appears on p.9 
of the second (book) issue of Gosse's (1859a) Actinologia Britannica'. The 
leaves comprising pp. 7-10 of this book were originally published as a 
cancellans in part 12 (Gosse, 1859b) of the first (parts) issue to replace the 
original pp. 7-10 in part 1 (Gosse, 1858): on p.8 of part 1 the name 
METRIDIADAE was validly published with a definition, including the four 
genera Me tridium, Actinodendron, Thalassianthus and A ctineria. 

4. Despite the fact that Gosse made this substitution of pp. 7-10 in 
the parts issue (probably belatedly considering the original detailed account of 
the family irrelevant, as he thought it had no European representatives), his 
first version makes the name METRIDIADAE available. This has previously 
been overlooked because when parts issues were bound, the binders usually 
discarded the cancellandum. In the book issue, which was sold already bound, 
there is no indication that pp. 7-10 comprise a cancellans. It is necessary to 
examine a set of the parts as issued in wrappers to establish this fact, but they 
are very rare. 

5. On the basis of the foregoing evidence, the anthozoan family 
name METRIDIADAE Gosse is not a nomen nudum and should be listed as 
METRIDIIDAE Gosse, 1858 (p. 8), taking priority over METRIDIIDAE 
Carlgren, 1893. 

REFERENCES 

CARLGREN, O., 1893. Studien iiber nordische Actinien. K. svenska 

Vetenskapsakad. Handl., vol. 25(10), pp. 1-148. 
DUNN, D.F. & HULSEMANN, K. 1979. Metridiidae Carlgren, 1893 (Anthozoa) 

and Metridiidae Sars, 1902 (Copepoda): request for a ruling to 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 157 



eliminate the homonymy. Z.N.(S.)2263. Bull. zool. Norn., vol. 36, pp. 
53-56. 
GOSSE, P.H. 1858. Actinologia Britannica: A History of the British Sea- 
Anemones and Madrepores. With Coloured Figures of All the Species. 
Part 1 . Van Voorst, London. 

1859a. Actinologia Britannica: A History of the British Sea-Anemones 

and Madrepores. With Coloured Figures of All the Species. Part 12. 
Van Voorst, London. 

1859b. Actinologia Britannica. A History of the British Sea-Anemones 

and Corals. With Coloured Figures of the Species and Principal Varieties. 
Van Voorst, London. 

SPHAERIIDAE IN MOLLUSCA AND INSECTA: 
COMMENTS ON PROPOSALS TO REMOVE THE HOMONYMY. 

Z.N.(S.) 1892 
(see Bull. zool. Norn. vol. 32, pp. 60-62, 201-204) 

(1) By Paul J. Spangler {National Museum of Natural History, 
Washington D. C. 20560, U.S.A.) 

I am at present preparing an article on the 'minute bog beetle' familv 
SPHAERIDAE, SPHAERIIDAE, MICROSPORIDAE, or whatever name is. 
eventually applied to them. Also I will soon be describing one or more new species 
of Sphaerius Waltl' from South America. These studies have led me to the 
proposal on the homonymy in family-group names in the Bull. zool. Nom. and have 
prompted the following comments. 

Because it seems clear that SPHAERIIDAE for the Mollusca has priority 
over its use in Insecta, my comments are directed at a replacement name for the 
beetle family. I am opposed to usmg the family name SPHAERIDAE (Insecta) 
versus SPHAERIIDAE (Mollusca) for the following reasons: 

(1) The name SPHAERIDAE would be grammatically incorrect and thus a 
perpetual error; (2) both names will inevitably be mis-spelled in the literature from 
time to time in the future and will be a recurring nuisance from that standpoint; (3) 
both spellings are already very similar to others in general use, such as 
Sphaeridium, SPHAERIDIIDAE, Sphaerites, SPHAERITIDAE, etc. 
Emendations such as SPHAERIDAE, SPHAERIUSIDAE or 
SPHAERIURIDAE would not alleviate this excess of names based on similar 
stems. 

Therefore I believe that the suggestion that 'it is better to rename the beetle 
family after a genus other than Sphaerius, if one exists" as suggested by Professor 
Tortonese {Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 60, 1975) and seconded by the late Dr 
Reichardt (vol. 32, p. 203, 1976) has considerable merit. In this case another name, 
Microsporus Kolenati, 1846, Meletemata entomol.. fasc. 5. p. 64 (type species of 
nominal genus, M. obsidianus Kolenati ibid., by monotypy) exists as a synonym of 
Sphaerius Waltl. Although Microsporus was originally proposed for a subgenus of 
Georyssus Latreille, 1809, it was treated as a synonym of Sphaerius by Matthews, 
1899, Monograph of the Coleopterous families Corylophidae and Sphaeriidae 
(London) and this synonymy has been accepted by subsequent coleopterists. I 
therefore support Reichardt's suggestion that Microsporus be made the 



158 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



nomenclaturally valid name of the genus and that the family name be changed to 
MICROSPORIDAE. This action would (1) solve the homonymy problem 
between the Mollusca and the Insecta and differentiate the beetle family name 
from the many names derived from similar stems, (2) eliminate the grammatically 
incorrect name SPHAERIDAE, (3) provide a highly descriptive generic and 
family name for the beetles involved, and (4) provide final stability for the beetle 
family name after many years of uncertainty. Furthermore, since Article 79c 
excludes the citing of precedents on the basis of earlier Opinions, analogous 
requests should be few and the final decision would still lie in each case with the 
consensus of the Commission and the zoologists concerned. 

Undue delay in stabihsing this problem of homonymy will only increase the 
problem. For example, since the question was first laid before the Commission, 
Abdullah {Zool. Beitr. vol 19, pp. 24, 26, 1973) has established a 'Series 
Sphaeriformia Abdullah, nov." based on Sphaerius Waltl in the coleopteran 
suborder Myxophaga. Abdullah further stated (p. 41) that the molluscan family 
name PISIDIIDAE had been approved by the Commission. Perhaps most of the 
damage has been done, but a prompt decision should stop the proliferation of 
incorrect citations. In addition, contributors to the new Catalog of Coleoptera of 
North America north of Mexico, which is well under way, would benefit from a 
prompt decision. 

[Note by the Secretary.- The family name PISIDIIDAE Gray, 1857, was 
added to the Official List in Direction 27 {Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nom. vol. 
10, pp. 481^92) 'for use by any worker who may consider that the genera Pisidium 
Pfeiffer and Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777, the type genus of the taxon 
SPHAERIIDAE, belong to different family-group taxa'. That ruling clearly does 
not preempt a ruling placing SPHAERIIDAE on the Official List. 

Dr Spangler's comment involves the following proposals to the Commission: 

(a) use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Sphaerius 
Waltl, 1838 and all subsequent uses for the purposes of the Law of 
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; 

(b) placing Microsponis Kolenati, 1846 (gender: masculine), type species, 
by monotypy, Microsponis obsidianus Kolenati, 1846, on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

(c) placing obsidianus Kolenati, 1846, as published in the binomen 
Microsporus obsidianus (specific name of type species of Microsporus 
Kolenati, 1846) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; 

(d) placing the family name MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976 (type 
genus Microsporus Kolenati, 1846) on the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology. 

R.V.M.] 

(2) By Dr Y.I. Starobogatov 

(Letter received 24 August 1979): In 1798 Bruguiere introduced Cyclas 
without description or species included by name, but accompanied by an 
illustration of Sphaerium rivicola of recent authors. In the following year Lamarck 
referred the sole species Tellina cornea Linnaeus, 1758 to the genus. But Lamarck's 
species is a composite, including Cyclas rivicola Lamarck, Sphaerium scaldianum 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 159 



Normand and (formally by name) Tellina cornea L. This allows me to treat 
Lamarck's Tellina cornea as a misidentification (see also Children, 1823, Q.J. Sci. 
Lit., Arts. vol. 14, p. 310). Children designated 'Cyclas rivicola Lamarck (Cyclas 
cornea Draparnaud)' as type species of Cyclas. This was accepted by Keen, 1969, 
Treatise invert. Paleont. pt. N, vol. 2, p. 670. 

I ask the Commission to designate Cyclas rivicola Lamarck, 1818 as type 
species of Cyclas Bruguiere, 1798, regardless of any other designation. This would 
give the family name CYCLADIDAE Rafinesque, 1820. priority over 
PISIDIIDAE Gray, 1857 and SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 (the last is a junior 
homonym of SPHAERIIDAE Erichson, 1845, Coleoptera). It would also give the 
generic name Cyclas to the group generally known as Sphaeriastrum Bourguignat, 
1854, S4em. Soc. Sci. phys. nat. Bordeaux, vol. 1, pp. 161-162, but that name was 
originally connected with Sphaerium corneum and is thus a junior objective 
synonym of Sphaerium. 

Authors who wish to use Sphaerium in the widest sense may include both 
Tellina cornea Linnaeus and Cyclas rivicola Lamarck in it, but this does not prevent 
the use of CYCLADIDAE for the family. 

[Note by the Secretary.- In reply to that letter I pointed out to Dr 
Starobogatov that the first author to misidentify Tellina cornea Linnaeus, 1758 was 
Draparnaud, and that it is clear from Lamarck's 1799 and 1818 works that he 
distinguished between T. cornea L. (type species of both Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777 
and Cyclas Bruguiere, 1798) and T. cornea Draparnaud, non L. = Cyclas rivicola 
Lamarck, 1818. To adopt CYCLADIDAE (invalid because the name of its type 
genus is a junior objective synonym) would involve the use of the plenary powers to 
designate C. rivicola as the type species of Cyclas, and to suppress Sphaerium in 
such a way that it could never again be used as the basis of a family-group name. 
This would revive a generic name {Cyclas) that had not been used for many decades 
and suppress a generic name that had been in general use for a similar period — and 
all to replace a well-known family name by an unused one.] 

(Letter received 26 November 1979): If the family name CYCLADIDAE is 
conserved, the generic names Sphaerium and Cyclas can still be used for different 
genera so long as C rivicola is designated as type species of Cyclas as I request. It is 
highly unlikely that anybody would regard these genera as belonging to separate 
families, but there are three possible solutions to that problem: (1) to suppress 
Sphaerium (the least desirable, as the name is already on the Official List); (2) to 
emend the spelling of SPHAERIIDAE in one of the ways that has been proposed; 
(3) to defer consideration of the problem, until it arises in the future. I am against 
the first, but indifferent as between the second and third. 

This would provide a valid name for the Cyclas rivicola group, for which no 
generic name is available, conserve the oldest available name {Sphaerium) for the 
Tellina cornea group, and solve the problem of homonymy of SPHAERIIDAE in 
Bivalvia and Coleoptera. 

(3)ByMrJ.G.J.Kuiper 
{c/o 121 rue de Lille, 75007 Paris, France) 

After nearly a century of confusion in Sphaeriid taxonomy and 
nomenclature, mainly due to the 19th century species concept in this group, a 
measure of uniformity in both aspects has now been reached in all European 
countries outside the Soviet Union. Since Woodward, 1913, Catalogue of the 



160 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



British Species of Pisidium, Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), three generations of workers 
have contributed to this precious result, which is summarised by Bowden & 
Heppell, 1968, /. Conchol., vol. 26(4), pp. 237-272. Thanks to this stability of 
taxonomy and nomenclature, a growing interest in this formerly neglected group of 
bivalves can be observed, not only among taxonomists, but also among ecologists, 
limnologists, physiologists, embryologists, geologists, parasitologists, etc. This 
would not have been possible under conditions of taxonomic and nomenclatural 
instability. If the present situation is to be changed, solid arguments must be 
produced. I find in Dr Starobogatov's statements a strong personal conviction, and 
I respect his right to hold it, but I see no convincing arguments for changing the 
current nomenclature, which is not on!> stable, but is in conformity with the Code. 

It is not strictly true, as Dr Starobogatov says, that there is no generic name 
available for the Cyclas rivicola group. Sphaeriastrum Bourguignat, 1854, Mem. 
Soc. Sci. phys. nat. Bordeaux, vol. 1, pp. 161-162 was established for C. rivicola 
and seven other species. Cyclas rivicola Lamarck, 1818, Hist. Anim. s. Vert. vol. 5, 
p. 558 was designated as type species by Westerlund, 1902, Rad. jugosl. Akad. 
Znan. Umjetn. vol. 151, p. 134. Most European authors outside the Soviet Union, 
including Bowden & Heppell, 1968, treat it as a subgenus of Sphaerium. Cyclas is, 
as the Secretary has shown, a junior objective synonym of Sphaerium. 

Dr Starobogatov says {Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 201) 'Analysis of all 
Lamarck's descriptions of both Cyclas and Cyclas cornea proves that his and 
Linnaeus's species are not conspecific", but in fact there is much room for doubt on 
this point. The 'ligament exterieur' mentioned by Lamarck is common to all eleven 
species of Cyclas listed by Lamarck, and these include two species of Pisidium 
(obtusale and fontinale) and one of Kellia {au.stralis; I have examined Lamarck's 
types). It is not at all certain what Lamarck meant by this character. Dr 
Starobogatov also mentions a 'protruded external ligament" (not mentioned by 
Lamarck). But 'ligament exterieur' can also mean an externally visible but not 
protruding ligament, as is seen in immature 5. rivicola and some forms of 5. 
corneum. 

Dr Starobogatov also argues that 'Sphaerium corneum never lives in small 
rivers and streams but only in ponds, ditches and lakes with muddy bottoms'. This is 
only acceptable if S. scaldianum and 5. corneum are held to be specifically 
different. All modern malacologists outside the Soviet Union consider 5. 
scaldianum an ecological infrasubspecific form of 5. corneum. I have found 5. 
corneum in the surroundings of Paris in waters of all kinds , including brooklets near 
their sources. 

European malacologists recognise three genera of SPHAERIIDAE: 
Pisidium with 20 species, Musculium with two and Sphaerium with four. Soviet 
malacologists recognise 7 genera, 12 subgenera and 70 species. These differences 
reflect differences in taxonomic thinking, not a genuine faunal difference (I have 
examined Soviet sphaeriids in the Leningrad Museum and have found them to 
belong to the same species as are found in western Europe). The causes of these 
differences are no doubt complex. It is difficult for Soviet malacologists to examine 
original types in western museums, so that they are obliged to turn to often 
incomplete and ambiguous early descriptions. It seems to me that their statistical 
analyses are not always based on sufficiently large samples and that their 
biogeographical conclusions make too little allowance for dispersal by birds and 
insects and for self-fertilisation in SPHAERIIDAE. They are, of course, entitled to 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 161 

their own ideas and taxonomic methods, but not to upset a nomenclature that has 
been stable for so long. It may be observed that the Secretary's proposals (Bull 
zool. Nom.vo\. 32, pp. 60-62) involve the direct application of the Code wiihout 
any use of the plenary powers where the Mollusca are concerned Dr 
Starobogatov s proposals invite the use of the plenary powers in a sense contrary to 
stability and uniformity of nomenclature. 

FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE CONCEPTS OF 

PARANOMENCLATURE Z.N.(S.) 1973 

(See vol. 36, pp. 11-14; vol. 37, pp. 141-144) 

R.W. Huddleston {Chevron Oil Field Research Company, P.O. Box 446, 
LaHabra, California, U.S.A.). 

In response to Mr. Melville's reply to my comments on paranomenclature 
{Bull. zool. Norn. vol. 37, pp. 141-142) I acknowledge that there may be whole 
groups of fossils where a dual taxonomy could prove necessary I 
maintain,however, that these groups of fossils are not vertebrates nor do these 
groups possess the structural complexity found in the vertebrate skeleton 

In defense of paranomenclature, Mr. Melville pointed to the examples of 
ammonites and their aptychi as well as holothurians and detached spicules- 
rhynchohtes and nautiloids, as areas where paranomenclature concepts could 
benefit taxonomic problems. However, in all of these invertebrate groups it is an 
either-or situation. Either one element is present (i.e. nautiloid shell) or the other 
element is present (i.e. rhyncholite). Among fossil vertebrates it is not a ^mple 
either-or situation. The large number of individual elements comprising the 
vertebrate skeleton vary considerably in their individual diagnosticity and 
preservability m the fossil record. Vertebrates are represented in the fossil record 
by material ranging from single elements to hundreds of different element^ The 
question remains, at what stage of completeness or incompleteness are these fossil 
vertebrate remains classed as taxa and parataxa. 

At the extreme end of incompleteness are the single elements such as the 
isolated teeth in mammals, elasmobranchs and hoiocephalians and otoUths in 
teleostean fishes. The diagnosticity of these elements is so significant as to be of 
greater taxonomic value than more complete fossils lacking these elements 

It IS the degree of structural complexity in the vertebrate skeleton, rarity of 
complete vertebrate skeletons in the fossil record and the inadequate definition of 
whole or 'more complete' fossils upon which paranomenclatural concepts rest that 
are the greatest concerns in the application of paranomenclatural concepts to fossil 
vertebrates. 

If parataxonomy is to be applied indiscriminately to all fossil groups 
regardless of whether it is needed or not, some system will have to be established to 
detine at what stage of completeness fossil vertebrate remains are considered taxa 
or parataxa. This distinction between which remains are considered taxa and which 
are parataxa is not a trivial matter, especially in view of the fact that names for 
parataxa will not compete for priority with names for taxa. The concept of priority 
is fundamental. The preamble to the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature states. 'Priority is the basic principle of zoological nomenclature.' 

1 believe that to apply paranomenclature to fossil vertebrates, in which no 



162 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



clear delineation between the various degrees of completeness can be made, would 
generate instability in the nomenclature of this group. This instability would result 
from the various conflicting independent subjective judgements as what forms 
compete for priority and which forms do not. 

I realise that the concept of paranomenclature is not to provide a separate 
nomenclature for fragments of any and every kind; it nevertheless gives "official' 
sanctions to such activities, which even Mr. Melville agrees {Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 
37, p. 143) would lead to chaos. 

I strongly urge that before a concept such as paranomenclature (affecting the 
fundamental principle of priority) is incorporated into the Code and applied to all 
fossil groups, that its potential, far reaching effects are more fully and carefully 
examined. Mr. Melville has pointed out several areas where such concepts are 
needed. My concern is for those areas (i.e. vertebrates) which are not in need of 
paranomenclatural concepts but which would nevertheless be strongly affected by 
its incorporation into the Code. 

The current definition of paranomenclature coupled with the complexity of 
the vertebrate structure and the imperfection of the fossil record creates a 
dangerous combination which contributes to the instability of many vertebrate 
fossil names on a nomenclatural basis. 

My concerns do not involve some 'naturally inherent quality of the animals', 
to quote Mr. Melville, nor does it advocate constraints or barring of taxonomic 
thought. It is simply a concern that paranomenclature applied to vertebrate fossils 
will generate instability and confusion as to which fossils would be taxa and which 
would be parataxa. 

What I have tried to explain is not how paranomenclature will affect those 
groups of invertebrates where Mr. Melville proclaims their necessity, but rather the 
problem of applying the definition of paranomenclature to those groups possessing 
such structural complexity as the vertebrates. I see no orderly way to apply 
paranomenclature to vertebrate fossils without disrupting traditional views on the 
nomenclature of this group or without affecting an orderly flow of nomenclatural 
concepts. 

Once again I strongly urge that at least fossil vertebrates be excluded from 
coverage under the proposed concepts of paranomenclature. 



Acknowledgements 
I thank Chevron Oil Field Research Company for permission to publish these 
comments and to D. Haman of Chevron Oil Field Research Company for helpful 
comments and review of this note. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 163 



CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 3: 

PROPOSED NEW METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE 

TERM OF SERVICE OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. 

REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTED AT HELSINKI. 

Z.N.(G.) 181/2. 

In a letter to the Council dated 24 July 1979 Mr. Heppell 
voiced dissatisfaction with the procedures leading up to the 
nomination of retiring members of the Commission for possible re- 
election at a 'Congress' (i.e. a meeting of the Section on Zoological 
Nomenclature and the Division of Zoology of lUBS). His letter was 
discussed at the General Meeting of the Commission at Helsinki in 
1979, and he and the Secretary were appointed as a subcommittee to 
consider these questions. 

2. The Constitution (Article 2a) at present provides that the 
term of that one-fifth of the members who have had the longest 
service terminates at the close of each 'Congress'. As the present 
'Congress' meets every three years, this provision implies that the 
normal term of office of a member is 15 years. In practice, however 
(as Mr. Heppell showed in tabular form), the retiring one-fifth 
scarcely, if ever, consists of members who have all served 15 years. 
The intervention of retirement at age 75, of resignations and of 
death leads inevitably to the advancement in seniority of members 
lower down the list, and this is aggravated if the interval between 
'Congresses' becomes irregular for any reason. Thus, of the five 
members retiring at the Helsinki 'Congress', three had been elected 
in 1968, and two in 1972. 

3. Mr. Heppell's proposals for remedying this situation (in 
which the facts clearly did not correspond to expectations) involved 
all the members elected at a given Congress being grouped in a Class 
together with those elected since the preceding Congress. All the 
rnembers of a Class would have equal seniority and would retire 
simultaneously. Our proposals follow that model. 

4. It may be helpful to have something of the historical 
background explained. From 1904 (Berne) to 1948 (Paris) the 
Commission's members were grouped in precisely the sort of classes 
envisaged by Mr. Heppell. Each class retired automatically at the 
close of a Congress and was known as the class of the year in which it 
retired. In those days, members were automatically eligible for re- 
election. The present system of rotation was introduced at Paris in 
1948 and was merely adapted to the conditions of life in lUBS in 
1973. Under that scheme, however, members elected in inter- 
Congress periods to fill casual vacancies served only for the 
unexpired part of the term of their predecessor, or otherwise were 
placed in the class whose term of service was to expire first. We do 
not propose to re-introduce this provision. 



164 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



5 . Our proposals, which consist of a re-draft of Article 3a of 
the Constitution, are appended. If accepted by the Commission and 
by the next 'Congress' (Ottawa, 1982), the first formation of the 
members into classes would take place after that 'Congress'. It is 
interesting to see how the first set of classes would be made up: 

(a) the senior class would presumably consist of the 
members still outstanding from those elected at 
Monaco in 1972 (i.e. those not considered at 
Ottawa). These number 7 (Brinck, Alvarado, 
Binder, Yokes, Holthuis, Bernardi, Dupuis); 

(b) the next senior class would consist of those elected 
between the close of the Monaco Congress and the 
close of the Bangalore 'Congress'. These number 6 
(Mroczkowski, Welch, Kraus, Ride, Sabrosky, 
Cogger); 

(c) the next senior class would consist of those elected 
between the close of the Bangalore 'Congress' and 
the close of the Helsinki 'Congress'. These number 7 
(Hahn, Halvorsen, Trjapitzin, Bayer, Coriiss, 
Starobogatov, Melville); 

(d) the most junior class would consist of those elected 
between the close of the Helsinki 'Congress' and the 
close of the Ottawa 'Congress'. 

At the outset, therefore, there would be only four classes instead of 
the full number of five envisaged in our proposals. This is because 
the most senior class will be empty, all its members having been lost 
to the Commission or already re-elected to serve in a more junior 
class. Thus, unless Council should decide to terminate the term of 
service of that class prematurely (Article 3a (vii) of our proposals), 
there would be no vacancies arising from its expiry in 1985; and the 
class whose term would end in the year 2000 would comprise 
members elected to fill vacancies arising between the Ottawa 
Congress and the next succeeding one. 

6. Finally, it should be noted that our proposals do not affect 
the number of members of the Commission (Article 2a of the 
Constitution) nor the procedure for nominating and electing new 
members (Article 4), nor that for determining the eligibility of 
retiring members for re-election (Article 3b). 



D. HEPPELL 
R.V. MELVILLE 



Bull. zool. Norn. , vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 165 

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION 

It is proposed that the existing Article 3a be deleted and 
replaced by the following: 
Article 3. Term of service of members of the Commission. 

(a) Normal term. The normal term of service of a member of 
the Commission shall be reckoned as follows: 

(i) All members shall be grouped into classes 
according to the date of their election or most 
recent re-election, and within each class all 
members shall have equal seniority, 
(ii) A class shall consist of members elected or re- 
elected at a Congress, together with any members 
elected during the period since the close of the 
previous Congress, 
(iii) The term of service of the most senior class shall 
terminate at the close of a Congress; but no 
member of that class shall be automatically 
eligible for re-election (Section b of this Article), 
(iv) No further entries to a class shall be made after 
the close of a Congress, and a new class shall be 
opened on the election of the first member to be 
elected thereafter, 
(v) The number of vacancies resulting from the 
expiry of the term of service of the most senior 
class shall equal the number of members who 
remained in the class until the date of its termina- 
tion, but the Commission retains discretion to 
vary its numbers at any time (Article 2a) and 
may, on the recommendation of the Council, 
decide not to fill all vacancies arising at a given 
Congress, 
(vi) If no Congress is held by the end of the third 
calendar year after the close of the preceding 
Congress, the term of service of the most senior 
class may, if the Council so decides, be 
terminated at the end of that calendar year, and 
members elected or re-elected thereafter shall 
form a new class as if there had been a Congress, 
(vii) When no members remain in the most senior 
class, or when more than half the total number of 
* members is in the most junior class, the term of 

service of the most senior class may be terminated 
prematurely, if the Council so decides, 
whereupon a new class shall be opened, 
(viii) There shall be no more than five completed 
classes at any one time. 
JThe_reiTiaining_provisions of this Article remain unchanged.] 



166 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL 

NOMENCLATURE 

DEFERMENT OF PROPOSAL TO INTRODUCE 

PROVISIONS TO REGULATE PARANOMENCLATURE. 

Z.N.(S.) 1973 

By the Secretary, International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature 

The purpose of this paper is to give some further explanation 
of the reasons for deferring publication of the results of the votes on 
Voting Papers (80)18, points 3 and 4, and (80)39 (see Bull. zool. 
Norn. vol. 38, pp. 47-48). 

In nearly all the groups in which dual taxonomies are used, 
they are expressed by dual nomenclatures (e.g. ammonites and 
aptychi; nautiloids and rhyncholites; holothurians and holothurian 
spicules, to mention but a few). In other words, Article 24b(i) of the 
present (1964) Code is ignored. The aim of the Editorial 
Committee's proposals (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 11-14) was to 
legahse this widespread and long-continued practice, in response to 
requests from workers in these fields. 

Unfortunately, those proposals encountered determined 
opposition from workers in one group — the conodonts — who have 
adopted a different procedure. Whereas nearly all the work done on 
conodonts in the first 100 years since they were discovered was 
concerned with discrete elements, nowadays more attention is given 
to associations of elements known as apparatuses. The classification 
of elements as such cuts across the classification of apparatuses as 
such, so that a given genus of elements may be found in two, three or 
more genera of apparatuses. Nevertheless, conodont workers since 
1966, and increasingly since 1972, have applied Article 24b(i) as 
though both elements and apparatuses could be dealt with in a single 
classification. It is now possible using statistical methods on large 
samples to associate together the elements that constituted a given 
apparatus, even if no specimen displaying that apparatus as a whole 
has been found. The oldest name among those of the constituent 
elements is then applied to that apparatus. At the species level, 
however, the specific name will only be applied to apparatuses that 
can be considered conspecific with the apparatus that contains the 
type specimen of the element with the oldest name. Closely'similar 
elements that occur in apparatuses considered not to be conspecific 
with that species will be given different names. At the generic level, 
the oldest generic name applied to any of the elements will be 
applied to the apparatus unless the apparatus is considered not to be 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 167 



congeneric with the one that represents the type species of the genus 
with the oldest name. In that case, some other generic name will be 
used. 

A classic example of the way in which this method works in 
practice can be found in Bergstrom & Sweet, 1966, Bull. amer. 
Paleont. vol. 50, No. 229. This paper deals with the conodont fauna 
of a small part of the Ordovician System of the United States. 
Element species of a single element genus are distributed between 
two or even three apparatus genera. In some cases, a single binomen 
may mean both an element species (in a genus represented in two or 
three apparatus genera) and an apparatus species; in more 
numerous cases, a single generic name may be used to denote a 
number of element species (distributed in a number of apparatus 
genera) and an apparatus genus. It is impossible to tell by inspection 
which of two taxonomic meanings is intended by a particular citation 
of a name. A single nomenclature is made to serve the needs of two 
different, cross-cutting taxonomies in conodonts. 

The task before the Commission is thus to find some way by 
which the procedure adopted by the conodont workers and that 
adopted for over 150 years by workers in other groups with 
parataxonomic problems can be covered by the Code. This will 
evidently be difficult and delicate, and may involve devising 
provisions that apply only to named groups of animals. 



168 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL 

NOMENCLATURE 

RESULT OF VOTE ON PROPOSALS FOR SUBSTANTIVE 

AMENDMENTS (FIFTH INSTALMENT). Z.N.(S.) 2342 

By the Secretary, International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature 

This report presents the result of the Commission's vote on the 
proposal that names published with the notation 'var.' or 'form' 
before 1961 are to be treated as having subspecific rank unless it is 
clear from the context of the work that the author used one of those 
terms to denote an infrasubspecific taxon. This proposal figured as 
Article 45g(i) of the Sixth Draft of the Third Edition of the Code 
(November 1977) and was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 
217 as paragraph 19 of the Commission's report to the Section on 
Zoological Nomenclature at Helsinki. It was approved by the 
Special Session of the Commission at Stensoffa, by the General 
Meeting of the Commission at Helsinki, and by the Section on 
Zoological Nomenclature and the Division of Zoology at Helsinki. 

On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)30 for or against the proposal presented in the following form: 

Code Article Commission Report to Section on Zoological 
Nomenclature at Helsinki, 1979, Section B 

45e(i) 19. That the use of either of the terms 'variety' or 

'form' with a name of the species-group 
published before 1961 is to be interpreted as 
denoting subspecific rank unless it is clear 
from the context of the work in which the 
name was first published that the author was 
using the name to denote an infrasubspecific 
taxon. The status of names treated as sub- 
specific by authors observing the mandatory 
provisions of Article 45e(i) of the Code 
concerning the interpretation of the terms 
'variety' and 'form' would be maintained. 
The Code Article 45e(i) currently makes it 
mandatory for names published before 1961 
with the terms 'variety' or 'form' to be 
treated as of subspecific rank. In some 
groups large numbers of names were used to 
characterize mere colour variants and their 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 169 



introduction into nomenclature would 
greatly complicate homonymy without any 
benefit. The provision permits discretion in 
the case of such names. 
The following background note was sent out with the voting 
paper. 

V.P. (80)30 — APPENDIX 

Background to the proposal 

This proposal modifies Article 45e(i) adopted at Monaco, 
1972, concerning the interpretation of the terms 'var.' and 'form'. 
The London (1961) Code said that the use of either of those terms 
before 1961 was not to be interpreted as an express statement of 
either subspecific or infrasubspecific rank. Many zoologists took 
this to mean that they could apply their judgment to a given use of 
either term in its context, and decide whether the author who had 
used the term intended it for a taxon of one rank or the other. 
However, the London Code also said, in Article 45d(i), that the 
rank of a taxon was to be interpreted as subspecific if, before 1961, 
the author did not clearly state its rank. The Monaco decision stated 
that the terms 'var.' and 'form', if used before 1961, were to be 
interpreted as denoting subspecific rank. 

The proposal in the 6th Draft, Article 45g(i), was that 'Use of 
either of the terms "variety" or "form" before 1961 is to be 
interpreted nomenclaturally as denoting subspecific rank unless the 
author made it clear that he was using the name to denote an 
infrasubspecific category or a population within a subspecies'. No 
separate attention was drawn to this in the articles published in Bull, 
zool. Nom. vol. 34, part 3, or vol. 35, part 2. No comments were 
received from the zoological public. 

The subject was very fully discussed by the special meeting at 
Stensoffa, which concluded that zoologists should have discretion to 
treat such names as having infrasubspecific rank where it was clear 
from the context that that had been the original author's intention. 
At the same time, the meeting resolved that such names published 
before 1961 and adopted before 1980 as the valid names of sub- 
species should continue to be available names in the species group. 

It is a mere matter of historical fact that the term 'variety' has 
been used in many different ways. In some cases it denotes an 
individual variant, in others a seasonal form, in yet others an 
undoubted subspecies. However, in groups where polymorphism is 
widespread (e.g. Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Bivalvia, Gastropoda) 
it has been extensively used at infrasubspecific level. To confer 



170 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



automatic availability on all such names would lead to 
nomenclatural chaos. 

The proposal was accepted by the Section on Zoological 
Nomenclature at Helsinki. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule for or against the 
proposal contained in paragraph B . 19 of the Commission's report to 
the Section on Zoological Nomenclature at Helsinki. At the close of 
the voting period on 5 December 1980 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following 
order: Melville, Willink, Cogger, Hahn, Bernardi, Brinck, Ride, 
Tortonese, Corhss, Habe, Lehtinen, Alvarado, Welch, Heppell, 
Halvorsen, Nye, Bayer 

Negative Votes — five (5): Holthuis, Mroczkowski, 
Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Sabrosky 

Vokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by 
Binder, Dupuis and Kraus. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their votes: 

Starobogatov: 'The original text in the 6th Draft is clearer and 
does not lead to endless confusion as this text does. Many 
"infrapopulational" variants of old authors have now become good 
species in MoUusca and Insecta. The new text of the provision leads 
the specialist to establish new names for well-known species.' 

Lehtinen: 'Article 45e(i) concerns one of the central problems 
of zoological nomenclature. It should be modified in a logically 
acceptable and at the same time, absolutely unequivocal form. The 
current form adopted at Monaco, seems to be unequivocal, but its 
principle certainly is not generally accepted. The leading principle 
of the London Code obviously was more sound, and the same is true 
for the proposal made at Helsinki, but their practical application is 
difficult and not unequivocal. 

The proposal made at Helsinki, 1979, is clearly better than the 
two preceding forms of this article , but still its interpretation may be 
disputable. I prefer the proposed form of Article 45e(i) in relation to 
the present Code, but I should like to leave this article for further 
discussion and later improvement. 

In my opinion, the bulk of obscure infrasubspecific names in 
many groups, published before 1961, have already been revised and 
treated in the best possible way. The status of all such names 
should be maintained as they are now, applying the vaHd Code. The 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 171 



situation may be different in a number of groups, but it will never be 
the same in all animal groups. Therefore I suggest that the 
possibility should be discussed to accept from some date onwards 
only subspecific names that have originally been published in the 
category of species-group names, even in regard to all unrevised 
names published before 1961. 

Polymorphic species with a few, morphologically distinct and 
discontinuous morphs is a type of infraspecific variation that belongs 
under Article 45e. The morphs clearly represent a category, the 
names of which are not available among the species-group names. 
However, the subspecies of some groups are or can be defined 
mainly according to presence or relative abundance of some 
morphs, and morphs in many groups have been repeatedly confused 
with subspecies or species. In my opinion, the Code needs some 
specified recommendations for treating of polymorphic species in 
general and geographically balanced cases separately. The presence 
of a nomenclaturally valid subspecific name simultaneously as an 
infrasubspecific name of another subspecies of the same species is 
highly confusing. This is possible, when a morph has originally been 
described as the oldest available name for a subspecies, although the 
same morph is present in populations of more than one subspecies. 

The above mentioned instance clearly shows that there are 
cases of infrasubspecific variation which are not infrasubspecific, 
but represent a category hierarchically parallel to subspecies. An 
active statement of such cases is necessary m a revised Code.' 

Sabrosky: 'Voting on this subject is subject to ruhng by the 
Council on my ruling in the matter and your appeal (Sept. 15) [see 
below]. I have delayed this long in the hope that the result would be 
available. However, if the Council has ruled against me, but the 
result has not yet been communicated to me, then I should record a 
vote that can be counted. I would object that the "Background to 
the Proposal" is entirely one-sided and does not present arguments 
for the other side.' 

THE PRESIDENT'S RULING 

On 15 September 1980 I received a copy of a letter from the 
President to the Editorial Committee. In the first three paragraphs 
he restated the formal position established by the London and 
Monaco decisions on Article 45e(i) of the Code as it is stated in the 
'Background to the Proposal' herein. He then continued: 

'4. Is the present proposed wording a substantive change? 
Yes, unquestionably, in my opinion. Instead of "grandfathering" 
into availability all var. and form names proposed before 1961 , it 
relegates some of them to infrasubspecific status and also introduces 



172 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



a subjective element meaning that all the numerous var. and form 
names will have to be re-examined to see whether infrasubspecific 
rank was suggested — in whatever shades of grey or interpretation 
that may involve. Some will no doubt prove to be infrasubspecific. 
But that will not be the end of the matter: one must then seek to find 
out whether such a name has been treated before 1961 as having 
subspecific rank. What a time-waster! 

'5. Has this substantive change been duly published, one 
year in advance of a vote, for comment by zoologists? The Editorial 
Committee published substantive proposals for general debate in 
Bull. zool. Norn, for November 1977, October 1978, July 1979 and 
August 1979. Nowhere in these announcements is there any 
mention of the var. and form problem. 

'It is true that a revision of this provision appeared in Draft 6, 
and Ride and Melville maintain that this satisfied the requirement 
for publication at least one year before voting. In my view this is not 
consistent with our separate pubhcation of the major issues in the 
four parts of the Bulletin noted above, in which the Secretary, for 
the Editorial Committee, pointed out that proposals of a major 
character "must be opened for general debate before the 
Commission can vote on them". Obviously, such major proposals 
for substantive changes needed to be highlighted to focus discussion 
on them. This has never been done with the var. and form problem, 
and it seems to me that the Editorial Committee can now be charged 
with gross negligence or oversight, or at worst for trying to slip 
something through by not making zoologists aware of the fact that 
something has been changed. Protests are certain to develop, just as 
Townes has long regarded — and with some justice, I believe — 
some Commission actions as illegal, and as I have so regarded 
Commission actions on the yucca moths and on the family name 
ATT ACID AE, neither of which I recognise as legitimate. 

'6. Am I biassed because I am opposed to the present var. 
and form provision? No doubt I am, but I have tried to be as 
objective as possible in considering the position of the Commission 
vis-a-vis zoologists and the image of the Commission. 

'7. Can one now consider this a major change, after it was 
accepted at Stensoffa and Helsinki? In my opinion, any member at 
any stage in the proceedings can challenge a procedural error or 
inadequacy, especially one as serious as a failure to publish a major 
change of comment . Certainly this is true as long as the Code has not 
been finally adopted (it is still subject to a vote by the full 
Commission). Even after adoption, a charge of failure to observe 
proper procedure would be cause for challenge and demand for 
reconsideration, which could result in (1) reversal, or (2) 
affirmation of what had been adopted, or perhaps (3) adoption of 
some compromise. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 173 



'8. Conclusion: as President of the Commission, acting 
under Bylaw 16, I rule that the proposed var. and form change is a 
major change that was not properly published as such and therefore 
cannot be included in the new Code , and that the Monaco provision, 
with such editorial work as may be appropriate, is all that we can 
legitimately use at this time.' 

The President went on to explain that any member of the 
Commission could appeal to the Council against his ruling, under 
Bylaw 25. 1 therefore did so on 15 September 1980, explaining that I 
agreed with the President's interpretation of what the London Code 
said and of the Monaco amendment. I went on: 

'I disagree with the President, first, on the procedural issue. 
We never formally bound ourselves to publish all proposals for 
substantive changes in the Bulletin and in the Bulletin alone. The 
point at issue was published in Draft 6, much more than a year 
before the voting paper — V. P. (80)30 — was issued. I consider that 
that voting paper was legitimately issued under the authority of the 
decision taken by the Section on Zoological Nomenclature at 
Helsinki as ratified by the Division of Zoology. A challenge to the 
correctness of our procedure therefore amounts to a challenge to the 
Helsinki ruling by the Section and Division, by which alone we are 
authorised to continue working on the Third Edition of the Code 
and take it to publication. Such a challenge can obviously only be 
dealt with when those bodies next meet, at Ottawa in 1982.' I 
accordingly urged the Council to reject the President's ruling. 

In a later letter received on 26 September 1980, the President 
indicated that he would abstain from voting on the issue. Professor 
Dr Holthuis had already indicated that he supported the President's 
position. The remaining members of Council at that time (Heppell 
and Brinck) supported the Secretary's position. The President's 
ruling was accordingly rejected. 

DECLARATION OF RESULT OF VOTE 

I hereby declare that the votes cast on V. P. (80)30 and in the 
subsequent Council vote were cast as set out above and that the 
proposal contained in that voting paper will be incorporated into the 
Code by the Commission, in accordance with the authority given to 
it by the Division of Zoology of lUBS at Helsinki, in words to be 
prepared by the Editorial Committee. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
3 March 1981 



174 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



OPINION 1182 
TETHYIDAE IN MOLLUSCA, PORIFERA AND 
TUNICATA: REMOVAL OF THE HOMONYMY 

RULING. -(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) it is hereby ruled that the stem of the generic name 
Tethys Linnaeus, 1767, is TETHYD ; 

(b) The generic name Tethyum Gunnerus, 1765, is 
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of 
Priority but not for those of the Law of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) Tethya Lamarck, [1814] (gender: feminine), type 
species, by subsequent designation by H. Milne 
Edwards, 1849, Alcyonium lyncurium Linnaeus, 
1767 (Name Number 2123); 

(b) Pyura Molina, 1782 (gender: feminine), type 
species, by monotypy, Pyura chilensis Mohna, 1782 
(Name Number 2124). 

(3). The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) aurantium Pallas, 1766, as published in the 
binomen Alcyonium aurantium (the valid name, at 
the time of this ruling, for the tvDC species of Tethya 
Lamarck, [1814]) (Name Number 2747); 

(b) chilensis, Pyura, Molina, 1782, as published in the 
binomen Pyura chilensis (specific name of type 
species of Pyura Molina, 1782) (Name Number 
2748). 

(4). The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) TETHYDIDAE (correction, through the ruling 
under the plenary powers in (l)ra) above of 
TETHYIDAE) Rafinesque, 1815 (as "Tethydia") 
(type genus Tethys Linnaeus, 1767) (Name 
Number 511); 

(b) APLYSIIDAE Swainson, 1840 (as "Aplysianae") 
(type genus Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767) (Name 
Number 512); 

(c) TETHYIDAE J.E. Gray, 1867 (as "Tethyadae") 
(type genus Tethya Lamarck, 1814) (Name 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 175 



Number 513); 
(d) PYURIDAE Hartmeyer, 1908 (type genus Pyura 
Molina, 1782) (Name Number 514). 
(5). The generic name Tethyum Gunnerus, 1765, as 
suppressed under the plenary powers in (l)(b) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names 
in Zoology with the Name Number 2117. 

(6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names with the Name 
Numbers specified: 

(a) TETHYIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (as 
"Tethydia"), an incorrect spelling in consequence 
of the ruling given under the plenary powers in 
(l)(a) above (Name Number 484); 

(b) TETHYIDAE Huntsman, 1912 (a junior 
homonym of TETHYIDAE J.E. Gray, 1867) 
(Name Number 485). 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1780 

The origin of the present case lies in a request from Mr Joshua 
L. Baily, Jr, received on 17 October 1966, for the completion of the 
ruling in Opinion 200 on the generic names Tethys and Aplysia by 
adding the corresponding family names (TETHYIDAE and 
APLYSIIDAE) to the Official List. It was not then possible to agree 
on a final text, but this was done in 1975. Mr Baily's application was 
sent to the printer on 16 May and published on 22 September 1975 in 
Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 144-145. Public notice of the possible 
use of the plenary powers in the case was sent to the statutory serials 
and to three malacological serials. 

Dr L.B. Holthuis wrote on 2 October 1975 to draw attention 
to the existence of the homonymous family name TETHYIDAE in 
Porifera (type genus Tethya Lamarck, [1814]). Dr W.O. 
Cernohorsky wrote on 25 November 1975 giving the correct authors 
and dates for the two molluscan family names involved. The 
application was supported by Dr Allyn G. Smith {California 
Academy of Sciences, San Francisco). Dr Jon-Arne Sneli 
{Biologisk Stasjon, Trondheim, Norway) sent a note received on 21 
January 1976 drawing attention to another homonymous use of the 
family name TETHYIDAE in Tunicata (Ascidiacea). 

These comments entailed much bibliographic work and 
correspondence with those directly involved as well as with other 
specialists to establish the original references for the various 
generic, specific and family-group names involved, and for the 
fixations of type species for the genera in question. These 



176 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



consultations led to the publication of a revised application by the 
Secretary on 28 February 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 
247-251. New notices of the possible use of the plenary powers in 
the case were sent to the statutory journals, to seven general serials 
and to three malacological serials. Dr Holthuis wrote to correct the 
type-species designation for Tethya Lamarck and the status of Pyura 
chilensis Molina. His comment was published in Bull. zool. Nom. 
vol. 35, p. 196, with the Secretary's reply. No other comments were 
received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)20 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 
34, pp. 247-251 as modified in vol. 35, p. 196. At the close of the 
voting period on 5 December 1980 the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the 
following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, WiUink, Brinck, 
Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Lehtinen, Hahn, Tortonese, Corliss, 
Dupuis, Habe, Ride, Welch, Alvarado, Cogger, Sabrosky, 
Heppell, Bayer, Halvorsen, Nye 

Negative Votes — none (0) 

Vokes was on leave of absence. No voting papers were 
returned by Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. 

Dr Sabrosky asked whether the family name 
TETHYMELIBIDAE Bergh, 1890, ought not to have been placed 
on the Official Index, as requested by Mr Baily in his original 
application. This was admittedly overlooked by the Secretary in his 
revised application and the point has not been voted on by the 
Commission. The name is, however, plainly unavailable, being 
based, not on the stem of a generic name but on a fusion of the stems 
of two generic names. Dr Sabrosky also asked whether "Tethydia" 
Rafinesque, 1815, was based on Tethys Linnaeus, 1758 (the name 
for a genus of tectibranch gastropods suppressed in Opinion 200) or 
on Tethys Linnaeus, 1767 (the name for a genus of nudibranch 
gastropods). The name "Tethydia" is accompanied by the 
description "pas de tentacules" and by a number of generic names. 
In addition to Tethys L. and 'Acera Cuv.' there are four new nomina 
nuda: Agenor, Armina, Nereus and Peribea. All these are accepted 
as nudibranch names by Russell, H.D., 1971, Index Nudibranchs, 
Delaware Mus. nat. Hist., iv -I- 141 pp. This leaves no doubt that 
Rafinesque intended to name a family of nudibranchs based on 
Tethys Linnaeus, 1767, and that the present ruling is not misdirected 
on that score. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 177 



ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for the names placed 
on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the 
present Opinion: 
APLYSIIDAE Swainson, 1840, Treatise Malacology, pp. 247, 248, 

251 
aurantium, Alcyonium, Pallas, 1766, Elenchus Zoophytorum, p. 

357 
chilensis, Pyura, Molina, 1782, Sag. Stor. nat. Chili, p. 348 
Pyura Molina, 1782, Sag. Stor. nat. Chili, p. 196 
PYURIDAE Hartmeyer, 1908, Zool. Annalen, vol. 3, pp. 7, 15, 26 
Tethya Lamarck, [1814], Mem. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris, vol. 1 (1), p. 69 
TETHYDIDAE Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nature, p. 141 
TETHYIDAE Rafinesque, 1815, ibid. 
TETHYIDAE J.E. Gray, 1867, Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1867, 

p. 540 
TETHYIDAE Huntsman, 1912, Trans. Canad. Inst. No. 21, vol. 9 

(2), p. 133 
Tethyum Gunnerus, 1765, K. norske Vidensk. Selskab. Skr. vol. 3, 

p. 102. 

The following is the original reference to a subsequent 
designation of a type species accepted in the present ruling: of 
Alcyonium lyncurium Linnaeus, 1767, as type species of Tethya 
Lamarck, [1814] by H. Milne Edwards, in Cuvier, Regne Animal, 
ed. 4 (Disciples' Edition), vol. 20 (1836-1849), pi. 95. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (80)20 
were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting 
paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the 
decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1182. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
16 December 1980 



178 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



OPINION 1183 

TEREBRATULA LINEATA YOUNG & BIRD, 1828, AND 

RHYNCHONELLA SUBCONCINNA DAVIDSON, 1852 

(BRACHIOPODA): DESIGNATION OFNEOTYPES 

RULING. -(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled 
that the following names are to be applied in accordance with the 
neotypes specified: 

(a) Terebratula lineata Young & Bird, 1828 by 
specimen number BB 14882 in the Palaeontology 
Department of the British Museum (Natural 
History), London; 

(b) Rhynchonella subconcinna Davidson, 1852 by 
specimen number B 33239 in the Palaeontology 
Department of the British Museum (Natural 
History), London. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) lineata, Terebratula, Young & Bird, 1828, as 
published in the binomen Terebratula lineata, and 
as interpreted by reference to the neotype 
designated under the plenary powers in (l)(a) 
above (Name Number 2749); 

(b) subconcinna Davidson, 1852, as published in the 
binomen Rhynchonella subconcinna, and as 
interpreted by reference to the neotype designated 
under the plenary powers in (l)(b) above (Name 
Number 2750). 

HISTORY OF THE CASES Z.N.(S.)1217, 1218 

Applications for the designation of neotypes by the use of the 
plenary powers for the two nominal species Terebratula lineata 
Young & Bird, 1828, and Rhynchonella subconcinna Davidson, 
1852, were first received from Dr D.V. Ager (then of Imperial 
College of Science, London S. W. 7) on 25 April 1957. They were sent 
to the printer on 12 June 1957 and published on 26 August 1957 in 
Bull. zool. Norn. vol. 13, pp. 251-253, 254-256 respectively. Public 
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given 
in three palaeontological serials. 

The application was supported by R.V. Melville (then of 
Geological Survey & Museum, London S.W.7). Professor J. 
Chester Bradley objected to the use of the plenary powers in the 
case; he thought that it should be dealt with under the 'notification- 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 179 

and-challenge' procedure proposed at the Cooenhapen f^Q<i1^ 

moPnograph"Fu«he™o?e',h''j'' specie's ^e^f'T '," ' 'T"\ 

Thl fa« h",Mhl "f plenary powers in tile manner reques ed 

■ Code was'n'ouhenleletanr "'"'"' '' ""' "^^"^^^ "nder^he'mi 
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

invUed°to ™f ;nyr''he'Tl,r?:tomh%r ^°r'^^'°" ""^ 
orderrl^orhu'rH^ell ^otfprln'/ S^" />" ""= !?"g"-S 

The votes were cast identically on both voting papers 

Con, Ji^sii^',;;;rh'?fe?rToT/s".;^ y%\iifr' "^ -'^ ■"""'^ «' '-^ 

recorded in the^Opiiion in detal" ' *""" ™'" '''°""' ''' 

challeiS? procedure" Th?''™,'" «° .^'>!°"'' "'<= notification and 

rXe-^?[h-ei5"^--^^^ 



180 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



J.C. Bradley: 'The plenary powers are to suspend the rules. I 
object to misusing them by invoking them to hasten the application 
of a rule in connection with which a satisfactory procedure is already 
provided.' 

The following comments were returned with V. P. (58)8: 

Lemche: 'The problem is not a nomenclatural one. The 
applicant should not be able to make the Commission responsible 
for the taxonomic view that subconcinna — fodinalis, which is the 
sole purpose of this application.' 

Mayr: 'As correctly stated by Commissioner Bradley, since 
this name has enjoyed uninterrupted usage, is not now challenged, 
and is unequivocally represented by the figure of the holotype, the 
application for a neotype does not meet the requirements adopted at 
Copenhagen. Mere loss of the holotype is not enough. The applicant 
has provided no real evidence of confusion.' 

Key: 'The applicant has given no reasons why the notification 
and challenge procedure is inadequate to deal with the situation he 
describes.' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for names placed on 
an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
lineata, Terebratula, Young & Bird, 1828, Geological survey of the 

Yorkshire coast, 2nd edit., p. 232, pi. 7, fig. 10 
subconcinna, Rhynchonella , Davidson, 1852, Monograph brit. foss. 

Brachiopoda (Palaeontogr. Soc), vol. 1(3), p. 10, pi. 1, figs. 

5a-c. 

The following are the original references to neotype 
designations accepted in the present Opinion: Ager, 1956, 
Monograph brit. Liassic Rhynchonellidae {Palaeontogr. Soc.) (1), 
pp. 40-43, pi. 3, figs. 6a-c (for Terebratula lineata), p. 10, pi. 1, figs. 
5a-c (for Rhynchonella subconcinna). 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on voting papers (58)7 and 8 
were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in those 
voting papers have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, 
and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly 
recorded in the present Opinion No. 1183. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
31 December 1980 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 181 



POSTSCRIPT BY THE SECRETARY 

Before writing the above Opinion, I asiced Professor Ager 
(now of University College, Swansea, U. K. ) whether usage of the 
names involved was the same today as when his application was 
submitted over 20 years ago. He assured me that it was. Since his 
application for the use of the plenary powers had been approved by 
the necessary two-thirds majority, I drafted the Opinion 
accordingly. 

R.V.M. 



182 Bull. zool. Norn. , vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



OPINION 1184 

D/7TL£A^C//f/5FILIPJEV, 1936, GIVEN 

NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER 

CHITINOTYLENCHUS MICOLETZKY, 1922 

(NEMATODA) 

RULING. -(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled 
that the generic name Ditylenchus FiHpjev, 1936, is to be given 
nomenclatural precedence over the generic name Chitinotylenchus 
Micoletzky, 1922, whenever the two names are considered 
synonyms. 

(2) The generic name Ditylenchus FiHpjev, 1936 (gender: 
masculine), type species, by original designation, y4«gM///M/a dipsaci 
Kuhn, 1857, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
with the Name Number 2125 and with an endorsement that it is to be 
given nomenclatural precedence over Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 
1922, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms. 

(3) The generic name Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922 
(gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by 
FiHpjev, 1936, Chitinotylenchus paragracilis Micoletzky, 1922, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with 
the Name Number 2126, and with an endorsement that it is not to be 
given priority over Ditylenchus FiHpjev, 1936, whenever the two 
names are regarded as synonyms. 

(4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) dipsaci Kuhn, 1857, as published in the binomen 
Anguillula dipsaci (specific name of type species of 
Ditylenchus FiHpjev, 1936) (Name Number 2751); 

(b) paragracilis Micoletzky, 1922, as published in the 
binomen Chitinotylenchus paragracilis (specific 
name of type species of Chitinotylenchus 
Micoletzky, 1922) (Name Number 2752). 



HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1955 

The report on which the present Opinion is based was 
prepared by the Secretary and published on 31 March 1977 in Bull, 
zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 241-244. Notice of the possible use of the 
plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin 
as well as to the statutory serials, to seven general and one 
nematological journal. No comment was received. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 183 



DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule, in Voting Paper (80)21 
in Part 1 for or against the use of the plenary powers in the case, and 
in Part 2 to use those powers either to reaffirm the decision to 
suppress Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922, taken in Voting Paper 
(75)7, or to give Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936, nomenclatural 
precedence over Chitinotylenchus. At the close of the voting period 
on 5 December 1980, the state of the voting was as follows: 

Parti 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the 
following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mrockzowski, Willink, 
Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Lehtinen, Hahn, Brinck, Corliss, 
Dupuis, Habe, Ride, Welch, Alvarado, Cogger, Sabrosky, 
Heppell, Bayer, Halvorsen, Nye 

Negative Votes — none (0) 

Part 2 
Alternative A 
Affirmative Votes — four (4): Melville, Lehtinen, Ride, 
Alvarado 

Alternative B 

Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following 
order: Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Willink, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, 
Hahn, Habe, Brinck, Corliss, Dupuis, Welch, Cogger, Sabrosky, 
Heppell, Bayer, Halvorsen, Nye 

Tortonese abstained from voting. Vokes was on leave of 
absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. 

Professor Tortonese observed: 'From their statements, the 
different specialists do not agree about the separation of the genera 
Ditylenchus and Chitinotylenchus. We cannot solve the 
nomenclatural problem if the taxonomic problem remains 
unsolved. I therefore agree with Professor Andrassy's opinion 
{Bull. vol. 33, p. 243): I do not consider that Ditylenchus is 
threatened by a name that may be a synonym but on the value of 
which we are not sure.' 

Dr Ride said: 'If taxonomists decide that Chitinotylenchus 
really merits taxonomic separation from Ditylenchus, let them start 
afresh with good type material.' 



184 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922, Arch. Naturges., vol. A 87, pp. 

546, 575 
dipsaci, Anguillula, Kuhn, 1857, Z. wiss. Zool., vol. 9, pp. 129-137 
Ditylenchus¥'\\\p']t\ , 1936, Proc. helminthol. Soc. Washington, \ol. 

3, pp. 81-82 
paragracilis, Chitinotylenchus, Micoletzky, 1922, Arch. Naturges., 

vol. A 87, pp. 547, 575. 

The following is the original reference to a type-species 
designation accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of 
Chitinotylenchus paragracilis as type species of Chitinotylenchus by 
subsequent designation: 
Filipjev, 1936, Proc. helminthol. Soc. Washington, vol. 3, p. 81. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V. P. (80)21 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision 
so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 
No. 1184. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
14 January 1981 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 185 



OPINION 1185 

SIMROTHIELLA PILSBRY, 1898 (MOLLUSCA, 

SOLENOGASTRES): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES 

RULING. -(1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of 
type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Simrothiella 
Pilsbry, 1898, are hereby set aside and Solenopus margaritaceus 
Koren & Danielssen, 1877 is designated as type species of that 
genus. 

(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) Dorymenia Heath, 1911 (gender: feminine), type 
species, by monotypy, Dorymenia acuta Heath, 
1911 (Name Number 2127); ' 

(b) Simrothiella Pilsbry, 1898 (gender: feminine), type 
species, by designation under the plenary powers in 
(1) above, Solenopus margaritaceus Koren & 
Danielssen, 1877 (Name Number 2128). 

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) acuta Heath, 1911, as published in the binomen 
Dorymenia acuta (specific name of type species of 
Dorymenia Heath, 1911) (Name Number 2753); 

(b) margaritaceus Koren & Danielssen, 1877, as 
published in the binomen Solenopus margaritaceus 
(specific name of type species of Simrothiella 
Pilsbry, 1898) (Name Number 2754); 

(c) sarsii Koren & Danielssen, 1877, as published in 
the binomen Solenopus sarsii (Name Number 
2755). 



HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2083 

An appHcation for the designation of a type species for 
Simrothiella Pilsbry, 1898, was first received from Dr L. von 
Salvini-Plawen {University of Vienna) through Dr L.B. Holthuis on 
22 July 1974. It was sent to the printer on 19 November 1974 and 
pubhshed on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 
156-157. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in 
the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials and to five general and three malacological serials. 
The application was supported by Mr D. Heppell except for the 



186 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



proposed amendment of sarsii to sarsi (paragraph (3)(c) and (4) of 
the applicant's proposals). Mr Heppell pointed out that Solenopus 
sarsii was a correct original spelling; the fact that it was indeed the 
original spelling has been verified. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)22 for or against the proposals published in Bull. zool. Nom. 
vol. 32, pp. 156-157. At the close of the voting period on 5 
December 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following 
order: Melville, Mroczkowski, Willink, Starobogatov, 
Trjapitzin.Hahn, Brinck, Tortonese, Corliss, Habe, Ride, Welch, 
Alvarado, Heppell, Bayer, Halvorsen, Nye 

Negative Votes — five (5): Holthuis, Lehtinen, Dupuis, 
Cogger, Sabrosky 

Vokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by 
Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Holthuis: Tt seems that these are Httle-known species of no 
interest in applied science. A strict application of the Code would 
not cause much confusion, if any (at least, it does not appear from 
the application that it would). Heppell's comment is perfectly 
correct.' 

Lehtinen: 'The arguments presented in favour of a proposed 
change of a vahd original type designation are not sufficient. The 
Law of Priority should be applied in this case.' 

Cogger: 'No evidence is presented in support of the contention 
that the proposed action is needed to "...avoid further confusion, 
which would involve the renaming of the nineteen Dorymenia 
species and to correspond with the general acceptance and usage of 
over fifty years. . ." . A desire to maintain existing usage should not in 
itself be an adequate reason to overturn the provisions of the Code . ' 

Holthuis, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Hahn and Welch 
supported, and Mroczkowski, Brinck, Tortonese, Alvarado and 
Halvorsen opposed Mr Heppell's comment which favoured the 
original spelling, Solenopsus sarsii. I have verified that that is the 
only original spelling of the name; and there can be no doubt that 
sarsius is an admissible latinisation of Sars. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 187 



ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

acuta, Dorymenia, Heath, 1911, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard, 

vol. 45, p. 95 
Dorymenia Heath, 1911, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard, vol. 45, 

p. 46 
margaritaceus, Solenopus, Koren & Danielssen, 1877, Arch. Math. 

Naturv., vol. 2, p. 128 
sarsii, Solenopus, Koren & Danielssen, 1877 , Arch. Math. Naturv., 

vol. 2, p. 128 
Simrothiella Pilsbry, 1898, in Tryon, G.W., Manual of Conchology , 

vol. 17, p. 296. 



CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V. P. (80)22 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision 
so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 
No. 1185. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
19 January 1981 



188 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



OPINION 1186 

TANYSTROPHEUS H. VON MEYER, [1852] (REPTILIA) 

CONSERVED 

RULING. -(1) Under the plenary powers, the generic name 
Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, [1852], is hereby suppressed for 
the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The generic name Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] 
(gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Tanystropheus 
conspicuus H. von Meyer, [1852], is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2129. 

(3) The specific name conspicuus H. von Meyer, [1852], as 
published in the binomen Tanystropheus conspicuus (specific name 
of type species of Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852], is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 2756. 

(4) The generic name Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, 
[1852], as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is 
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2118. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2084 

An application for the suppression of the generic name 
Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, [1852], was first received from Dr 
Rupert Wild (Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde, Stuttgart, BRD) 
on 9 July 1974. It was sent to the printer on 19 November 1974 and 
published on 27 June 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 124-126. 
Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given 
in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and 
to two herpetological serials. As a result of criticisms, a revised 
paper was published in vol. 33, pp. 124-126. Public notice of the 
possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same 
part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to ten general 
serials and two herpetological serials. The application was 
supported by Dr G.E. Gow (University ofWitwatersrand, RSA). No 
adverse comment was received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980) 
23 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, p. 
125. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1980 the state 
of the voting was as follows: 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 189 



Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19), received in the following 
order: Melville, Mroczkowski, Willink, Brinck, Starobogatov, 
Trjapitzin, Lehtinen, Hahn, Tortonese, Corliss, Habe, Ride, 
Welch, Alvarado, Sabrosky, Heppell, Halvorsen, Bayer, Nye 

Negative Votes — Holthuis, Cogger 

Dupuis abstained from voting. Vokes was on leave of absence. 
No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. 

The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Holthuis: 'Article 24a nowhere says that the two synonyms 
have to be considered vahd by their author(s). Under this Article, 
Macroscelosaurus must be considered a junior objective synonym of 
Tanystropheus . ' 

Dupuis: 'Je m'abstiens, car je soupgonne qu'une recherche 
historique serieuse concernant le nom Macroscelosaurus n'a ete 
poursuivie ni par le demandeur (R. Wild) ni par les auteurs dont il 
cite une supposition en passant dans un Traite (Peyer in Kuhn- 
Schnyder) alors qu'un nom aussi long et complique ne pent pas etre 
une pure invention de H. von Meyer.' 

Cogger: 'The single treatment of Macroscelosaurus as an 
available name "with its original date and authorship" (Article lid) 
is apparently that of Kuhn, 1934, but the applicant is unable to verify 
that Kuhn's attribution is correct, or that Miinster's 
Macroscelosaurus was ever published prior to its citation in 
synonymy by H. von Meyer, 1852. Consequently Macroscelosaurus 
Miinster, 1834 cannot be shown to have been published and is not 
available under either of the provisions of Article lid. Further, the 
name Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, [1852] is not available under 
Article 1 Id, and its suppression using the plenary powers would not 
only seem to be unnecessary, but would leave the basic problem 
unresolved if any worker was to locate the "missing" reference to 
Macroscelosaurus Munster, 1834, which, having been used as an 
available name by Kuhn, would presumably become available as a 
senior synonym of Tanystropheus W. von Meyer, [1852]. Although I 
oppose only parts 5a and 5d of the application, it seems appropriate 
to vote against the application as a whole.' 



ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 
conspicuus, Tanystropheus, H. von Meyer, [1852], Zur Fauna der 

Vorweh (2), p. 42 



190 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



MacroscelosaurusH. vonMeyer, [1852], Zur Fauna derVorwelt (2), 

p. 42 
Tanvstropheus H. von Meyer, [1852], Zur Fauna der Vorwelt (2), 
' p. 42. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on voting paper (80)23 were 
cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting 
paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the 
decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1186. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
21 January 1981 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 191 

nT^urr^j r^ OPINION 1187 
OP///OL£P/^MULLER&TROSCHEL 1840 
^^^ (OPHIUROIDEA) 
DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES 

teendir femmmel'T "^""^ OpMolepis MuUer & Troschel, 1840 
r. uil^^j-^^^ specific name superba HL Clart loi^ 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2097 

as .o ,he s,a,u,ory seriafs and .o ftThlf s":il'''^o^,"^^^^^^^^^^^ 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

invite?to vote'unde'r^^^^ Commission were 

^^^^:^l:^^C^^ '--' - ' ^ecembrA9lo?fe 

folIovvmf"?der Me^ilir Hol';r'"M''\ ^^^^^^ - the 
Starobogatov Trjao^fzrn f .h^ ''o Mroczkowski, Willmk, 

Corliss, DuruisHabfR^deWri^K" A ^^ ^""^'^' Tortonese, 

Bayer, Halv^ors^n Nye ' '^'^' ^'^"^"^°' ^^^^^^^^V' Heppell,' 

Negative Vote — Cogger 



192 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



Yokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by 
Bernard!, Binder and Kraus. 

The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Ride: 'Although I vote for the proposal, I must ask the 
Secretary to consider whether the Commission should also be 
required to make the name O. superba Clark an available name by 
the use of the plenary powers before placing it on the Official List. 
As I interpret the information given by the applicants, they are 
asking the Commission to accept O. superba as a replacement name 
for a homonym. But although H.L. Clark assumes it to be so, "O. 
annulosa Blainville" is not an available name. It is a misused name. 
The questions not covered by the Code are: 

'(i) Whether Miiller & Troschel estabhshed the new name 
Ophiolepis annulosa by using it in accordance with the 
wrong usage of a previous author (Blainville) when they 
established a new nominal genus for which they did not 
designate a type species from among several originally 
included species. I do not think Article 70b(i) covers this 
eventuahty. 
'(ii) I do not consider that Article 70b(i) allows O. annulosa 
to be made available from Lyman since, although he 
expHcitly refers to the "wrong usage" of Blainville, and 
Lyman is designating a type species, it is not for a new 
nominal genus as required by the Article. It is a type by 
subsequent designation after the establishment of the 
nominal genus (Article 67b). 

'Unless O. annulosa Blainville is an available 
name, O. superba Clark is not a replacement name and 
is not available.' 

Cogger: 'Although Blainville clearly misidentified 
the material before him as Ophiura annulosa Lamarck, 
1816, the applicants have correctly pointed out that 
Blainville had not established a new species. 
Consequently, Ophiolepis superba nom. nov. of H.L. 
Clark, 1915, is not a new name for a homonym but, 
under Article 72d, is simply a new name for Lamarck's 
annulosa and has the same type specimen. Thus Clark's 
Ophiolepis superba is a junior objective synonym of 
Ophiura annulosa Lamarck, and whether the nominal 
type species of Ophiolepis is O. annulosa of de 
Blainville (= O. annulosa Lamarck) or O. superba H.L. 
Clark (= O. annulosa Lamarck) seems irrelevant. The 
type species is still O. annulosa Lamarck and this is true 
now and would continue to be true whether or not the 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 193 



application is approved. It is implied (though not stated) 
that the purpose of the action sought is to conserve the 
name superha for the taxon represented by Blainville's 
specimens. If so, an entirely different strategy involving 
use of the plenary powers to set aside the provisions of 
Article 72d would seem to be necessary.' 

Reply by Melville: Careful reading of our 
application will show that we hold that all those who 
treated O. annulosa Blainville as a homonym of O. 
annulosa Lamarck were wrong. We state clearly that the 
case concerns a misidentified species. Under Article 49, 
the specific name wrongly used in such a 
misidentification cannot be used for the species in 
question under any circumstances. H.L. Clark was in 
fact not renaming a homonym, but giving a name to a 
species that had none of its own; we should have stated 
clearly that, in our view, he should have said 'Ophiolepis 
superha sp. nov.', instead of 'nom. nov.' Both the 
comments cited above show a misunderstanding of what 
H.L. Clark actually did, and of Article 49. 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for the 
names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the 
present Opinion: 
Ophiolepis Miiller & Troschel, 1840, Arch. Naturges., 

Jahrg. 6, vol. l,p.328 
superba, Ophiolepis, H.L. Clark, 1915, Spolia 

Zeylanica, vol. 10, p. 89. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting 
Paper (80)24 were cast as set out above, that the 
proposition contained in that voting paper has been duly 
adopted under the plenary powers, and the decision so 
taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly 
recorded in the present Opinion No. 1187. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
27 January 1980 



194 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



TEIIDAE GRAY, 1827 (REPTILIA, SAURIA): 
PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)1920 

By William Presch {Department of Biological Sciences, California 
State University, Fullerton, California 92634, U.S.A.) 

Thirty-seven genera of lizards restricted to the New World 
have been placed in the family TEIIDAE since the work of 
Boulenger, 1885. The name TEIIDAE was proposed by Gray in 
1827, but two years earlier Gray had proposed the family 
TUPINAMBIDAE. Under Article 23d of the International Code 
of Zoological Nomenclature, TUPINAMBIDAE has priority over 
TEIIDAE which is in general current use. The object of the present 
application is to request the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to grant the name 
TEIIDAE Gray, 1827, precedence over the name TUPINAMBIDAE 
Gray, 1825. 

2. TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825, p. 199, was established 
for the nominal genus Tupinambis Daudin, 1802, p. 5, type species 
Lacerta teguLxin Linnaeus, 1 758, p. 208, by monotypy. 

3. TEIIDAE Gray, 1827, p. 204, was established for the 
nominal genus Teius Merrem, 1820, pp. 13, 60, type species Lacerta 
teyou Daudin, 1802, p. 195, by monotypy. 

4. Between 1758 and 1884 lizards currently placed in the 
TEIIDAE were distributed under 27 family-group names. Boulenger, 
1884, p. 335, proposed the currently accepted arrangement of 
families and then Boulenger, 1885, p. 330, published a list of 
genera included in the TEIIDAE. Since then the name TEIIDAE has 
been in general current use, for example by Boulenger, 1 884; Camp, 
1923; Cope, 1892, 1900; Duellman, 1979;Estes, 1969; Etheridge, 
1967; Gugg, 1938; MacLean, 1974;Northcutt, 1978;Presch, 1980; 
Tihen, 1964;Uzzell, 1973; Vanzolini «& Ramos, 1977;Wever, 1978. 

5 . To the best of my knowledge the name TUPINAMBIDAE 
has not been used since it was made available, whereas the name 
TEIIDAE has been in continuous use for over 50 years. In the 
interests of stability I request the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that TEIIDAE Gray, 
1827 (type genus Teius Merrem, 1820), is to be given precedence 
over TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825 (type genus Tupinambis Daudin, 
1802), whenever the two names are appUed to the same taxon; 

(2) to place the following names on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Teius Merrem, 1820 (gender: masculine), type 
species by monotypy Lacerta teyou Daudin, 1802; 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 195 



(b) Tupinambis Daudin, 1802 (gender: masculine) type 
species by monotypy, Lacerta teguixin Linnaeus, 
1758; 

(3) to place the following names on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) teyou, Lacerta, Daudin, 1802 (specific name of the 
type species of Teius Merrem, 1820); 

(b) teguixin, Lacerta, Linnaeus, 1758 (specific name of 
the type species oi Tupinambis Daudin, 1802); 

(4) to place the following names on the Official List of 
Family -group Names in Zoology: 

(a) TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (type genus Teius Merrem, 
1820) with an endorsement that it is to be given 
precedence, by use of the plenary powers in (1) 
above, whenever it and TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 
1825, are applied to the same tax on; 

(b) TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825 (type-genus 
Tupinambis Daudin, 1802) with an endorsement 
that it is not to have priority over TEIIDAE Gray, 
1827, whenever both names are applied to the 
same tax on. 

REFERENCES 

BOULENGER, G.A., 1884. Synopsis of the famUies of existing Lacertilia. 

Ann. Mag. not. Hist. (5), vol. 14, pp. 1 17-122. 
1885. Catalogue of the lizards in the British Museum (Natural History) 

London, Ed. 2, vol. 2, xiii + 497 pp. 
CAMP, CHARLES L., 1923. Classification of the lizards. 5i/Z/. amer. Mus. nat. 

//wr.,vol. 48, pp. 289-482. 
COPE, E.D., 1892. The Osteology of the Lacertilia. Proc. amer. philos. Soc, 

vol. 30, pp. 185-222. 
1900. The Crocodilians, Lizards and Snakes of North America. yln«. 

Rept. U.S. nat. Mus. fox 1898 (1900), pp. 151-1294. 
DAUDIN, P.M., 1802. Histou-e NatureUe des ReptUes, vol. Ill, p. 85. 
DUELLMAN, W.E. ed., 1979. The South American Herpetofauna. Univ. 

Kansas Press Monograph No. 7, 485pp. 
ESTES, R., 1969. Relationships of two Cretaceous lizards (Sauria, Teiidae) 

Breviora, No. 317, 8pp. 
ETHERIDGE, R.E., 1967. Lizard caudal vertebrae. Copeia No. 4, pp. 699-721. 
GRAY, J.E., 1825. Synopsis of the genera of Reptiles and Amphibians. Ann. 

Philos. vol. 26 (N.S. vol. 10), pp. 193-217. 
1827. Synopsis of the genera of Saurian Reptiles in which some new 

genera are indicated and the others reviewed by actual examination. 

Philos. Mag. N.S. vol. 2(7), pp. 54-58. 
GUGG, W., 1938. Der skeralring der plagiotremen Reptilien. Zool. Jb. vol. 65, 

pp. 337-416. 



196 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



LINNAEUS, C, \lS%.Systema Naturae, eA. 10, vol. l,p. 208. 

MacLEAN, W.P., 1974. Feeding and locomotion mechanisms of teiid lizards: 

Functional morphology and evolution. Pap. Aval. Zool. S. Paulo, vol. 

27(15), pp. 179-213. 
MERREM, B., 1820. Tentamen Systematis Amphibiorum, 191 pp., Marburg. 
NORTHCUTT, R.G., 1978. Forebrain and midbrain organization in lizards and 

its phylogenetic significance. In Greenberg, N. and MacLean, P.D. eds., 

Behavior and Neurology of Lizards. Nat. Inst. Mental Health No. 

(ADM) 77-491, 352pp. 
PRESCH, W., 1980. Evolutionary history of the South American microteiid 

lizards (Teiidae: Gymnophthalminae). Copeia (1): pp. 35-36. 
TIHEN, J.A., 1964. Tertiary changes m the herpeto fauna of temperate North 

America. Senek. Bio. 45: pp. 265-279. 
UZZELL, T., 1973. A revision of lizards of the genus Prionodactylus with a 

new genus for P. leucostictus and notes on the genus Euspondylus 

(Sauria, Teiidae). Postilla, No. 1 59. 67 pp. 
VANZOLINI, P.E. & ANA MARIA M. RAMOS 1977. A new species of 

Colobodactylus with notes on the distribution of a group of stranded 

microteiid lizards (Sauria, Teiidae). Pap. Avul. Zool. S. Paulo, vol. 31(3), 

pp. 19-47. 
WEVER, E.G., 1978. The Reptile Ear, Princeton Univ. Press, 1024pp. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 197 



GENERIC NAME AHUAUTLEA DE LA LEAVE, 1832 

(INSECTA, HETEROPTERA, CORIXIDAE): 

PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

Z.N.(S.)2299 

by Antti Jansson (Department of Zoology, University of 
Helsinki, P. Rautatiekatu 13, SF-001 00 Helsinki 10, Finland) 

Corixia mercenaria Say, 1832 was described from material 
obtained from Mexican markets as a product called 'ahuautle'; the 
specimens were originally collected from Lake Texcoco. The front 
page of the paper gives the printing date as 'Dec. 1831', but actual 
printing evidently did not take place until early 1832, probably 
January-February (cf. Jansson, 1979). Original specimens of C. 
mercenaria have been lost, but the species has been uniformly 
interpreted by several authors (Champion, 1901 ; Lundblad, 1928; 
Jaczewski, 1931; Hungerford, 1948). Further, Lundblad, 1928, 
based his description of the genus Corisella mainly on Corixia 
mercenaria, and Hungerford, 1948, chose C. mercenaria to be the 
type species of Corisella and selected a whole 'series of neotypes' 
which were also obtained from Mexican markets; from this series 
Jansson, 1979, designated one male specimen as the neotype. 

2. Ahuautlea mexicana de la Llave, 1832 (printed in July 
1832) was described from material obtained from Mexican markets 
and from Lake Texcoco. None of the specimens on which the 
description was based is known, and the description is mostly of 
such a nature that it appUes to nearly any corixid of the size of a 
'rice grain'. For instance, Guerin-M€neville, 1862, commented on 
the description, but could not recognize the species. Orozco y 
Berra, 1864, quoted the description in full, but then it remained 
unnoticed until the late 1950's. 

3. Corixa femorata Gu6rin-M6neville, 1857 was also 
described from material bought from Mexican markets as 'ahuautle'. 
The type series was deposited in the Paris Museum, and the species 
later became the type species of the genus Krizousacorixa Hunger- 
ford, 1930. 

4. Ancona, 1933, studied the composition of the 'ahuautle' 
by sampUng Lake Texcoco, and found that the most common 
species of CORIXIDAE was Krizousacorixa azteca Jaczewski, 1 93 1 , 
but in small numbers K. femorata (Gu6rin-M6neville, 1857), 
Corisella mercenaria (Say, 1832) and C texcocana Jaczewski, 1931 
[= C. tarsalis (Fieber, 1851)] were taken also. However, while this 
was the situation in the early 1930's, other papers clearly indicate 
that the species composition has largely varied from time to time; 
C. mercenaria is the only species that has been reported from the 



198 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



'ahuautle' steadily throughout the past 150 years (Say, 1832; 
Guerin-Meneville, 1862; Kirkaldy, 1 898; Champion, 1901 ; Ancona, 
1933;01ivares, 1964). 

5. Deevey, 1957, found de la Llave's 1832 description of 
Ahuautlea mexicana and without any truly supporting facts claimed 
that A. mexicana 'has priority over the generic name Krizousacorixa 
Hungerford, 1930 and the specific name Corixa femorata Gue'rin- 
M6neville, 1857'. In the following discussion about the composition 
of the 'ahuautle' Deevey, 1957, referred to Ancona, 1933, and 
changed his mind by stating that A. mexicana 'is ordinarily 
Krizousacorixa azteca Jaczewski, 1931 ; it may also be K. femorata 
(Gu6rin-Meneville, 1857), while Corisella texcocana Jaczewski and 
C. mercenaria (Say) may be less important components of the 
product'. 

6. Olivares, 1964, referring to Deevey, 1957, and widely 
interpreting de la Llave's 1832 text, then proposed the synonymy 
of Krizousacorixa femorata (Guerin-MSneville, 1 857) with Ahuautlea 
mexicana de la Llave, 1832. Sailer, 1977, adopted this synonymy 
in the preface to the reprint edition of Hungerford's 1948 mono- 
graph on the CORIXIDAE of the Western Hemisphere. 

7. Recent investigation (Jansson, 1979) has shown that 
Ahuautlea mexicana de la Llave, 1832 could not have been any of 
the species placed today in the genus Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 
but belonged to those placed in Corisella Lundblad, the most likely 
species being C. mercenaria (Say). To end the confusion, Jansson, 
1979, designated the specimen designated as the neotype of Co rixia 
mercenaria Say, 1832, also as the neotype of Ahuautlea mexicana 
de la Llave, 1832. This action made A. mexicana a junior objective 
synonym of C. mercenaria (cf. paragraph 1 and 2 above), and 
Corisella a junior objective synonym of Ahuautlea. 

8. Say, 1 832, used the generic name "'Corixia, Geoff, Latr." 
for all the species of CORIXIDAE he dealt with in that paper, but 
because he credited Geoffroy for the genus and had previously used 
the form Corixa Geoff. (Say, 1825), Corixia was obviously an 
incorrect spelling (misprint?) of Corixa. The generic name Ahuautlea 
de la Llave, 1832 would thus have priority over the generic name 
Corisella Lundblad, 1928. However, the generic name Ahuautlea 
has been used only by Deevey, 1957; Olivares, 1964; and Sailer, 
1977, and in all these cases as a name with suggested priority over 
Krizousacorixa, but the generic name Corisella is well known and 
has been widely used during the past years (e.g. Applegate, 1973; 
Brooks & Kelton, 1967; Frick & Sauer, 1974a, 1974b; Hilsenhoff, 
1970; Hungerford, 1948; Hurlbert & al., 1970; Jansson, 1976; 
Lansbury, 1955, 1960; Scudder, 1976; Wilson, 1958). Obviously, 
to revive for the well known genus Corisella a name which is little 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 199 



known and has been used only in connection with suggested 
priority over quite another genus could only lead to further con- 
fusion. 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
is therefore asked :- 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name 
Ahuautlea de la Llave, 1832 for the purposes of the 
Law of Priority but not those of the Law of Homonymy ; 

(2) to place the generic name Ahuautlea as suppressed in 
(1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Generic Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the generic names (a) Corisella Lundblad, 1928 
(gender: feminine), type species as designated by 
Hungerford, 1948, Corixia mercenaria Say, 1832, and 
(b) Krizousacorixa Hungerford, 1930 (gender: feminine) 
type species by original designation Corixa femorata 
Guerin-M6neville, 1857 on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology; 

(4) to place the specific names (a) mercenaria Say, 1832, as 
pubUshed in the bin omen Corixia mercenaria, and (b) 
femorata Guerin-Me'neville, 1857, as published in the 
binomen Corixa femorata (specific names of the type 
species of Corisella Lundblad, 1928 2ind Krizousacorixa 
Hungerford, 1930, respectively) on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology. 

REFERENCES 

ANCONA, H.L. 1933. El Ahuautle de Texcoco. Anales Inst. Biol. Univ. 

Nacional Mexico vol. 4, pp. 51-69. 
APPLEGATE, R.L. 1973. Corixidae (water boatmen) of South Dakota glacial 

lake district. Entomol. News vol. 84, pp. 163-170. 
BROOKS, A.R. & KELTON, L.A. 1967. Aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera 

of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba (Hemiptera). Mem. Entomol. 

Soc. Canada vol. 51, pp. 1-92. 
CHAMPION, G.C. 1901. Biologia Centrali-Americana. Insecta. Rhynchota. 

Hemiptera -Heteroptera. Vol. 2, pp. 375-383. 
DEEVEY, E.S. 1 957. Limnologic studies in Middle America. Trans. Connecticut 

Acad. Arts Sci. vol. 39, pp. 217-328. 
FRICK, J.H. & SAUER, J.R. 1974a. Osmoregulation in the adult water boat- 
man, Corisella edulis Champion (Het., Corixidae). Comp. Biochem.. 

Physiol, vol. 47(A), pp. 789-797. 
1974b. Water balance in the adult water boatman, Corisella edulis 

Champion (Het., Corixidae). Comp. Biochem. Physiol, vol. 48(A), pp. 

105-113. 
GUERIN-MENEVILLE, F.E. 1857. Entomologie appliquee: hautle - pain 

d'insectes. Le Moniteur Universel, Journal Officiel de I'Empire Francois 



200 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



330, p. 1298 (26 November 1857). 
1862. Analyses d'ouvrages nouveaux; Ahuautle, notice par M. de la 

Llave, etc. Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) vol. 14, pp. 282-285. 
HILSENHOFF, W.L. 1970. Corixidae (water boatmen) of Wisconsin. Wisconsin 

Acad. Sci. Arts & Letters vol. 58, pp. 203-235. 
HUNGERFORD, H.B. 1930. New Corixidae from western North America 

(Hemiptera). Pan-Pac. Entomol. vol. 7, pp. 22-26. 
1948. The Corixidae of the western hemisphere (Hemiptera). Univ. 

Kansas Sci. Bull. vol. 32, pp. 1-827. 
HURLBERT, S.H., MULLA, M.S., KEITH, W.E.,WESTLAKE, W.E. & DUSCH, 

M.E. 1970. Biological effects and persistence of Dursban in freshwater 

ponds./. Econ. Entomol. vol. 63, pp. 43-52. 
JACZEWSKI, T. 1931. Studies on Mexican Corixidae. ylnn. Mus. Zool. Polonici 

vol. 9, pp. 187-230. 
JANSSON, A. 1976. Audiospectrographic analysis of stridulatory signals of 

some North American Corixidae (Hemiptera). Ann. Zool. Fennici vol. 

13, pp. 48-62. 
1979. The identity of Ahuautlea mexicana de la Llave (Heteroptera, 

Corixidae). Pan-Pac. Entomol. \o\. 55, pp. 251-257. 
KIRKALDY, G.W. 1898. An economic use for waterbugs. Entomol. Monthly 

Mag. vol. 34, pp. 173-175. 
LANSBURY, I. 1955. Distributional records of North American Corixidae 

(Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Canadian Entomol. vol. 87, pp. 474-481. 
1960. The Corixidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) of British Columbia. 

Proc. Entomol. Soc. B.C. vol. 57, pp. 34-43. 
DE LA LLAVE, P. 1832. Ahuautle. Registro Trimestre, Mexico, vol. 1, pp. 

331-337. 
LUNDBLAD, O. 1928. Drei neue Corixidengattungen. Zool. Anz. vol. 79, 

pp. 148-163. 
OLIVARES, B.R. 1964. A reconsideration of the nomenclature of one of the 

species of Mexican Corixid (Hem.), known as 'Ahuautle'. Entomol. 

Monthly Mag. vol. 100, p. 240. 
OROZCO Y BERRA, M. 1864. Memoria para la carta hidrogrdfica del Valle 

de Mexico. Mexico, Boix, 185 pp. 
SAILER, R.E. 1977. Preface to the reprint edition. (In) Hungerford, H.B. 

1948: The Corixidae of the western hemisphere (Hemiptera). Univ. 

Kansas Sci. Bull. vol. 32. Reprinted by Entomol. Reprint Specialists, 

Los Angeles, pp. v-vi. 
SAY, T. 1825. Descriptions of new Hemipterous insects collected in the 

expedition to the Rocky Mountains, performed by order of Mr. Calhoun, 

secretary of war, under command of Major Long. /. Acad. Nat. Sci. 

Philadelphia vol. 4, pp. 307-345. 
1832. Descriptions of new species of Heteropterous Hemiptera of 

North America. New-Harmony, Indiana, 39 pp. 
SCUDDER, G.G.E. 1976. Water-boatmen of saline waters (Hemiptera: 
Corixidae). (In) Cheng, L.: Marine insects. North-Holland Publ. Co., 

pp. 310-368. 
WILSON, C.A. 1958. Aquatic and semiaquatic Hemiptera of Mississippi. 

Tulane Stud. Zool. vol. 6, pp. 1 1 5-1 70. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 201 



PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO GRANT 

PRECEDENCE TO THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME 
EPHYDRIDAE OVER HYDRELLIIDAE (INSECTA, DIPTERA). 

Z.N.(S.)2334 

By Wayne N. Mathis (Department of Entomology, NHB-169, 
Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., 20560. U.S.A.) 

The purpose of the present application is to request the use 
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature's 
plenary powers to grant precedence to the family name 
EPHYDRIDAE over its senior synonym HYDRELLIIDAE when 
the two are considered as synonyms. 

2. Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, p. 783, proposed the tribe 
name 'HydreUideae', based on the generic name Hydrellia 
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, p. 790. The type species of this genus is 
Hydrellia aurifacies Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, p. 791 {= Notiphila 
flaviceps Meigen, 1830, Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Ins., vol. 6, p. 72), by 
subsequent designation by Coquillett, 1910, p. 553. Although the 
family-group name continued to be given status at the tribal and 
subfamiUal levels, it has never been adopted at the familial level 
since its proposal. 

3. Seven years after Robineau-Desvoidy 's proposal of 
HYDRELLIDEAE, Zetterstedt (1837, p. 48) proposed the sub- 
family name EPHYDRINAE based on the generic name Ephydra 
Fallen, 1810, p. 22. The type species of this genus is Ephydra 
riparia Fallen, 1813, K. Vetenskaps Akad. Handl. for 1813(2), 
p. 246, by subsequent designation by Curtis, 1832, p. 413. All 
subsequent authors known to me have used EPHYDRIDAE as the 
family name, although sometimes with a variant spelling. Of the 
hundreds of pubUcations that could be listed as documentation, I 
have selected and annotated the following: 

Loew (1860; review of European Ephydridae, as "Ephy- 

drinidae"). 

Loew (1862; review of North American Ephydridae, as 

"Ephydrinidae"). 

Becker ( 1 896 ; review of literature and higher classification on 

world basis; species treatments limited to Europe). 

Becker ( 1 905 ; catalog of Palaearctic species). 

Becker( 1 926 ; review of Palaearctic species). 

Cresson (1942-1949; synopses of species of subfamilies (one 

subfamily not completed) for Nearctic Region). 

Wirth ( 1 965 ; catalog of North American species). 

Wirth (1968; catalog of Neotropical species). 

Nartschuck (1970; keys to species of European USSR). 



202 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



Colless & McAlpine ( 1 970 ; Insects of Australia). 
Richards & Davies (1977; Imms' general text). 
Cogan & Wirth (1977; catalog of Oriental species). 

4. Suppression of HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 
1830, when used synonymously with EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 
1837, seems clearly warranted in the interest of nomenclatural 
stability. The family name HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 
however, should not be placed on the Official Index of Rejected 
and InvaUd Family Names in Zoology, as it was and is still given 
status at the tribal and familial levels. 

5. The Commission is therefore requested: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to grant precedence to 
the family name EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837, 
over the family name HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau- 
Desvoidy, 1830, when the two are considered to 
be synonymous; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) Ephydra Fallen, 1810 (gender: feminine), type 
species, by subsequent designation by Curtis, 
1 83 2, Ephydra riparia Fallen, 1813; 

{h) Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by subsequent desig- 
nation by Coquillett, \9\0, Hydrellia aurifacies 
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) riparia Fallen, 1813, as published in the bino- 
men Ephydra riparia (specific name of type 
species of Ephydra Falle'n, 1810); 

ih) flaviceps Meigen, 1830, as published in the 
bin omen Notiphila flaviceps (valid name for 
the type species of Hydrellia Robineau- 
Desvoidy, 1830); 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology: 

(a) EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 (type genus 
Ephydra Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), with an 
endorsement that it is to be given precedence 
over HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 
1830 (type genus Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 
1830) whenever the two names are held to be 
synonyms; 

(b) HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, 
(type genus Hydrellia Robineau-Desvoidy, 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 203 



1830) with an endorsement that it is not to 
be given priority over EPHYDRIDAE 
Zetterstedt, 1837, whenever the two names are 
held to be synonyms. 

REFERENCES 

BECKER, T., 1896. Dipterologische Studien IV. Ephydridae. Bed. Entomol. 
Zeit. vol. 41(2), pp. 91-276. 

1905. Ephydridae. Pp. 185-215. /«, Becker, T., et al., eds., A:a?a/oj'<ier 

paldarktischen Dipteren. Vol. 4. Budapest. 

1926. Ephydridae. Family 56, pp. 1-115. In, Lindner, E., ed., Die 

Fliegen der palaearktischen Region, Vol. 6(1). Stuttgart. 
COGAN, B.H., & WIRTH, W.W., 1977. Family Ephydridae. Pp. 321-339. In, 

Delfinado, M.D. and Hardy, D.E., eds., A Catalog of the Diptera of 

the Oriental Region. Volume III. Suborder Cyclorrphapha (excluding 
Division Aschiza). Honolulu. 
COLLESS, D.H. & McALPINE, D.K., 1970. Diptera. Pp. 656-740. In, The 

Insects of Australia, Melbourne Univ. Press. Victoria. 
COQUILLETT, D.W., 1910. The type species of the N. American genera of 

Diptera, U.S.A. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. Vol. 37, pp. 499-647. 
CRESSON, E.T., Jr., 1942-1949. Synopses of North American Ephydridae 

(Diptera). Pt. I-IV. Trans. Amer. Entomol. Sac. vol. 63-74. 
CURTIS, J., 1832. British Entomology: Being illustration and descriptions 

of the genera of insects found in Great Britain and Ireland. Vol. 9, 
^pls. 384^33. 
FALLEN, C.F., 1810. Specimen entomologicum novam Diptera disponendi 

methodum exhibens. 26pp. Lund. 
LOEW, H., 1860. Die Europaeischen Ephydrinidae und die bisher in Schlesien 

beobachteten Arten derselben. In [his] Neue Beitrage zur Kenntniss 

der Dipteren. Siebenter Beitrag. Programm Realschule zu Meseritz, 

1860, pp. 1-46. 
1862. Monographs of the Diptera of North America. Part I. Smithsn. 

Inst., Smithsn. Misc. Collect, vol. 6(141), pp. 1-221. 
NARTSCHUK, E.P., 1970. 94. Fam. Ephydridae - Shore FUes. Pp. 363-388. 

In, Stackelberg, A.A., and Nartschuk, E.P., eds., Vol. 5, Flies, Fleas. 

2nd Pt. In, Bei-Bienko, G.Y., ed., Keys to the Insects of European 

USSR. Leningrad (in Russian). 
RICHARDS, O.W. & DAVIES, R.G., 1977. Imms' General Textbook of 

Entomology. Vol. 2: Classification and Biology. 10th Ed. 1354 pp. 

London. 
ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY, J.B., 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires. Inst, de France, 

Sci. Math, et Phys., Acad. Roy. des Sci., Mem. presentes par divers 

Savans, vol. 2, pp. 1-813. 
WIRTH, W.W., 1965. FamUy Ephydridae. In, Stone, A., et al., tds.,A catalog 

of the Diptera of America North of Mexico. Agri. Handbk. 276, USDA. 

1696 pp. 

1968. Family Ephydridae. In, Papavero, N., ed., A Catalog of the 

Diptera of the Americas South of the United States. Dept. Zool. Sec. 



204 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



Agri., Sao Paulo, fasc. 77, pp. 1^3. 
ZETTERSTEDT, J.W., 1837. Conspectus familiarum, generum et specierum 
dipterorum, in fauna insectorum Lapponica descriptorum. Isis (Oken's) 
1837, pp. 28-67. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 205 



NABIS CAPSIFORMIS GERMAR, [1838] (INSECTA, 

HETEROPTERA, NABIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION 

UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2147 

By Izyaslav M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences 
of the USSR, Leningrad, U.SS.R.) 

Nabis capsiformis Germar, [1838], p. 132, was described 
from South Africa (Cape of Good Hope). The species is very 
common in neariy all tropical and subtropical regions of the world. 
A^. capsiformis is used as the valid name of the species in hundreds 
of works including faunistic lists, biocoenological papers, keys of 
regional faunas and catalogues. Those of Benedek (1969), Gross 
(1963), Kerzhner (1970), Kerzhner &. Jaczewski (1964), 
Kiritshenko (1951), Remane (1964), Stichel (1958-1960), Villiers 
(1952), Wagner (1967) and Zimmerman (1948) are indicated here 
for fulfilment of the provisions of Article 79b of the Code. 

2. Nabis angustus Spinola, 1837, p. 107 is described from 
Bombay. The name was never used as a valid one in the primary 
zoological literature. It was synonymised under Nabis capsiformis 
Germar by Distant (1904, p. 400) and from this date considered as 
a junior synonym of that name. No evidence exists that the African 
and Asiatic specimens are specifically or subspecifically distinct. 

3. Kerzhner (1970, p. 353) discussed the dates of publi- 
cation of Germar's and Spinola's works and paid attention to the 
priority of Spinola's forgotten name. Now it is possible to give 
more precise conclusions. 

4. Germar's paper is published on p. 121-192 of 'Revue 
entomologique, publiee par G. Silbermann', vol. 5. This paper was 
dated 1837 by the majority of bibliographers and hemipterologists, 
presumably 1839 by Kerzhner (1970) and 1840 by Sherbom 
{Index Animalium, 1801-1850). The title-page of the volume is 
dated 1 837, but printing was certainly finished in late 1 840 because 
p. 351 contains an obituary of L. Gyllenhal, who died on 13 May 
1840, and p. 348 contains an announcement of the sale of Dejean's 
collection on 1 December 1840. Germar's paper is preceded in the 
volume by a paper of Chevrolat (p. 41-1 10) dated under the title 
"Juillet 1838" and by a review of a work of Aube(p. 111-114), 
published in Paris in September 1838 (Sherbom, op. cit.). The 
acceptance of livraisons 25 to 28 of 'Revue entomologique' by 
the library of the French entomological society was indicated at 
'Seance du 21 novembre 1838' (Bull. Soc. ent. Fr. 1838, p. LXV). 
These livraisons are indicated as belonging to vol. 4 (op. cit. 1838, 
p. XC) but certainly belong to vol. 5 because all 5 volumes of 
'Revue' include 30 livraisons (op. cit. 1833-1841) and livraisons 



206 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



29 and 30, displayed at 'Seance du 3 fevrier 1841' (op. cit. 1841, 
p. Ill) form the end of vol. 5. Moreover it is stated by Hagen (1862, 
Bibliotheca entomologica, vol. 2, p. 166) that Silbermann's 'Revue 
entomologique' is published in 'six livraisons par ann6e', i.e. each 
volume contains six numbers. Vol. 5 from the hbrary of the French 
entomological society (xerox copies of necessary pages were sent 
to me by Dr. J. Pe'ricart) bears handwritten inscriptions 'S6ance du 
21 9bre 1838' ('9bre' corresponding to November as in Roman 
numbering of months still used in 19th century) on the title-page 
and on p. 121, the first page of Germar's paper, and 'S6ance du 
3 fevrier 1841' on p. 225. Accordingly 1 accept [21 November 
1 838] as the date of publication of Germar's paper. 

5. Spinola's book was published in 1837 between March 4 
(Spinola, 1837, p. 383) and September 6 {Bull. Soc. ent. Fr. 1837, 
p. LIX). A new title-page was printed in 1840 and has sometimes 
been wrongly used for dating Spinola's names {e.g. by Distant, 
1904). 

6. In accordance with the Article 79b of the Code, the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name 
angustus Spinola, 1837, as published in the binomen 
Nabis angustus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority 
but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; 

(2) to place the specific name capsiformis Germar, [ 1838] , 
as published in the binomen Nabis capsiformis, on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; 

(3) to place the specific name angustus Spinola, 1837, as 
published in the binomen Nabis angustus, and as 
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on 
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific 
Names in Zoology. 

REFERENCES 

BENEDEK, P. 1969. Heteroptera VII. Fauna Hungariae, 94. Budapest. 86 pp. 
DISTANT, W.L. 1904. The Fauna of British India. Rhynchota vol. 2, pt. 2: 

243-503. London. 
GERMAR, E.F. [1838]. Hemiptera Heteroptera promontorii Bonae Spei, 

nondum descripta, quae collegit C.F. Dr^ge. Silbermann's Rev. entomol. 

t. 5: 121-192. Strasbourg et Paris (printed in Strasburg). 
GROSS, G.F. 1963. Coreidae, Neididae and Nabidae. Insects of Micronesia 

vol. 7, No. 7: 357-390. Honolulu. 
KERZHNER, I.M. 1970. Neue und wenig bekannte Nabidae (Heteroptera) aus 

den tropischen Gebieten der Alten Welt. Acta entomol. Mus. Nat. 

Pragae vol. 38, 1969: 279-359. 
KERZHNER, I.M. & JACZEWSKI, T.L. 1964. Hemiptera (Heteroptera). In: 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 207 



Keys to insects of the European part of the USSR vol. 1 : 655-845. 

Moscow and Leningrad. (In Russian). 
KIRITSHENKO, A.N. 1951. Heteroptera of the European part of the USSR. 

Opred. pofauneSSSR 42. Mpscow and Leningrad. 423 pp. (In Russian). 
REMANE, R. 1964. Weitere Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Gattung Nabis Latr. 

(Hemiptera Nabidae). Zoo/. Beitr. (N.F.) vol. 10: 253-314. 
SPINOLA, M. 1837. Essai sur les genres d'insectes appartenants h I'ordre des 

HSmipteres . . . Genes. 383 p. 
STICHEL, W. 1958-1960. Illustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Wanzen, II. 

Europa vol. 3. Berhn-Hermsdorf. 428 pp. 
VILLIERS, A. 1952. Hemipteres de I'Afrique noire (Punaises et Cigales). /n^f. 

Fr. Afr. noire, Initiations africains 9. Dakar. 256 pp. 
WAGNER, E. 1967. Wanzen oder Heteropteren II. Cimicomorpha. Z)/e Tier- 
welt Deutschlands Teil 55. Jena. 179 pp. 
ZIMMERMAN, E.C. 1948. Heteroptera. Insects of Hawaii vol. 3. Honolulu. 

255 pp. 



208 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



CLYTIA LAMOUROUX, \^\2,LA0MEDEA 

LAMOUROUX, 1812. AND CAMPANULARIA 

LAMARCK, 1816 (COELENTERATA, HYDROIDA): 

PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS OF TYPE St>ECIES BY USE 

OF THE PLENARY POWERS, AND COMMENTS ON 

RELATED GENERA. Z.N.(S.)2326. 

By Paul F.S. Cornelius (Department of Zoology, British 
Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD). 

1. Introduction 
The marine hydroid family CAMPANULARIIDAE includes 
several intertidal and offshore genera widely known among biologists. 
One of these, Obelia Pe'ron &Lesueur, 18 10, p. 355, although origin- 
ally based on the medusa stage, has become the best known of any 
genus of colonial hydroid; but the closely related Laomedea 
Lamouroux, 1812, p. 184, and Campanularia Lamarck, 1816, 
p. 112, are also well known. Another familiar genus in this family is 
Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, p. 184. There are long-standing nomen- 
clatural problems concerning all these genera and some of the 
species in them. Campanularia and Laomedea have been confused 
by many authors, and some have used Obelia in place of Laomedea. 
Since the genera are comparatively well known the need for 
stabihty is pressing, but there is confusion also over the type species 
of these genera. The purpose of this paper is to propose 
designations of type species under the plenary powers of the 
Commission where necessary, to stabilise the generic nomenclature 
in this family. The proposals follow a world-wide generic revision of 
the family in which the need for the use of these powers has been 
made apparent (Cornelius, in prep,). 

2. Laomedea and Obelia 

2. The widely used genus name Laomedea Lamouroux, 
1812, p. 184 (Coelenterata, Hydroida, CAMPANULARIIDAE), 
is a junior subjective synonym of another well known name, Obelia 
Peron & Lesueur, 1810, p. 355 (Cornelius 1975, pp. 253-254), and 
under the Code should not be used. But the genus to which the 
name Laomedea has been appUed is found on the shores of all 
continents except Antarctica. Application of the Code would lead 
to Laomedea being dropped, and this would cause confusion. 

3. The following references establish 2i prima facie case for 
the conservation of Laomedea under the provisions of Article 23. 
Each is an important work in which Laomedea was used as a valid 
name: Kramp, 1935, 1938; Vervoort, 1946; Leloup, 1952; 
Buchanan, 1957; Hamond, 1957; Marine Biological Association, 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 209 



1957; Barrett &Yonge, 1958; Teissier, 1965; Robins, 1969. 

4. Conservation of the name Laomedea can be 
conveniently achieved by designating as type species a species not 
originally included, so that there will no longer be any question of 
synonymy with the older name Obelia. The two species originally 
included in Laomedea were Sertularia dichotoma Linnaeus, 1758, 
p. 812 (now universally assigned to the 'medusa genus' Obelia) 
and S. spinosa Linnaeus, 1758, p. 812 (now assigned to the 
bryozoan genus Vesicularia Thompson, 1830, pp. 89, 97; 
e.g. Prenant & Bobin, 1956, p. 276); and neither could usefully be 
designated type species. Therefore, I propose that Laomedea 
flexuosa Alder, 1857, p. 122, a species not originally included, be 
designated type species of the genus Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, 
by use of the plenary powers (paragraph 28). I define that genus 
as follows (after Cornelius, in prep.): colonial CAMPANULARIIDAE 
with: polyp generation forming upright colonies; stolon branching 
but not anastomosing; no hydrothecal spherule; true diaphragm 
present; hydranth with well developed hypostome; gonotheca 
aperture typically circular, wide; gonophores sessile, interpreted 
as vestigial medusae in species which have been closely studied. 

5. It should be noted in passing that Broch (1905, p. 10) 
proposed that Laomedea loveni Allman, 1859, p. 138, should be 
type species of Laomedea; but loveni was not originally included. 
The valid species loveni has been widely referred to the genus 
Gonothyraea Allman, 1864, p. 374, a practice which seems 
biologically sound. Hence the Commission is not asked to ratify 
Broch's invalid designation. 

3. Campanularia, Orthopyxis and Rhizocaulus 

6. The well known genus name Campanularia Lamarck, 
1816, p. 112, also presents problems which need action under the 
plenary powers. Campanularia had no type species validly desig- 
nated until Nutting (1915, p. 28) selected Sertularia verticillata 
Linnaeus, 1758, p. 811. Naumov, 1960, p. 249 (repeated in trans- 
lation in Naumov, 1969, p. 269) later designated S. volubilis 
Linnaeus, 1758, p. 81 1, as type species and Millard, 1966, p. 477 
and Millard, 1975, p. 203, concurred; but Nutting's designation of 
verticillata has priority. However, there are difficulties resulting 
from Nutting's overlooked designation. The species verticillata 
stands out from the others in the genus Campanularia s. str. and 
some authors have -removed it to its own genus. I agree with this 
action (Cornelius, in prep.). 

7. Stechow, 1919, was the first to propose a genus to 
accommodate 5. verticillata (and some dubious species similar 
in colony habit which he listed). For this genus he introduced the 
name Rhizocaulus Stechow, 1919, p. 852, type species Sertularia 



210 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



verticillata Linnaeus, 1758, by original designation. It is proposed 
to retain the name Rhizocaulus, by setting aside Nutting's desig- 
nation (paragraph 28). 

8. Application of the Code would restrict Campanularia 
to verticillata and the few similar nominal species listed by Stechow, 
1919, and Naumov, 1960, 1969. The familiar intertidal and shallow 
water species usually referred to Campanularia would need a new 
genus name. Since no familiar name is available confusion would be 
inevitable, so long as the generic separation of verticillata were 
upheld. 

9. A second genus was later established to accommodate 
S. verticillata and one other species, namely Verticillina Naumov, 
1960, pp. 9, 115, 122, 269 (also in translation in Naumov, 1969, 
pp. 6, 1 15, 123, 291); type species Sertularia verticillata Linnaeus, 
1758, p. 811, by original designation. Although more pleasing than 
Rhizocaulus, the name Verticillina is clearly a junior objective 
synonym of Rhizocaulus since it has the same type species, and 
regrettably it should not be used. 

10. It should again be noted in passing that Broch, 1905, 
p. 10, designated 'Campanularia calyculata Hincks, 1853', p. 178 
(lapsus for caliculata) as type species of Campanularia, but 
caliculata was not among the originally included species. The 
species C caliculata is currently referred to the genus Orthopyxis 
J.L.R. Agassiz, 1862, pp. 297, 355 (type species by monotypy 
Clytia (Orthopyxis) poterium J.L.R. Agassiz, 1862, p. 297, subject- 
ively regarded as conspecific with caliculata by Cornelius, in prep., 
and by others listed therein). Orthopyxis was introduced by 
Agassiz, 1862, as a subgenus of Clytia on page 297 of his work, 
including the 'new' species poterium alone; but on page 355 he 
upgraded Orthopyxis to genus. [Although employing the combina- 
tion Clytia poterium in the 'Explanation of the plates' following 
page 380 of the main text, in the captions of plates 28 and 29 there- 
in; and the lapsus Clythia poterium on the plates themselves. Never 
theless, the name Orthopyxis was vahdly introduced.] On page 355 
of the work Agassiz, 1862, implicitly used the combinations 
'Orthopyxis (Orthopyxis) poterium', 'Orthopyxis (Campanularia) 
voluhiliformis' and 'Orthopyxis (Laomedea) Integra' of various 
authors). Thus poterium can righly be regarded as type species by 
monotypy of the subgenus Orthopyxis Agassiz and of the genus 
Orthopyxis Agassiz. 

1 1 . There is some debate about whether Orthopyxis s. str. 
and Campanularia s. str. should be taken as one genus or two. 
Millard, 1975, combined them; but Ralph, 1957, and Cornelius, 
in prep., have upheld a separation. If the two genera are regarded 
as distinct, then I believe none would doubt that caliculata would 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 211 



ideally go into Orthopyxis, and not into Campanularia. Hence 
Broch's, 1905, invalid designation of "calyculata' as type species 
of Campanularia would, if accepted, prove confusing. A new genus 
name would have to be found for Campanularia auctorum. No 
familiar name is available, and the Commission is not asked to 
ratify Broch's invahd proposal. 

12. I therefore propose that Sertularia volubilis Linnaeus, 
1758, p. 811, should be designated as type species o{ Campanularia 
by use of the plenary powers. Campanularia could then still be used 
sens. auct. ; and the species S. verticillata would become known as 
Rhizocaulus verticillatus, which is taxonomically acceptable. 

13. The remaining species once assigned to Campanularia 
in the sense of, for example, Hincks, 1868, and Bedot, 1901-1925, 
would have to be placed in other genera, in keeping with some 
previous opinions. These genera would be: Laomedea Lamouroux, 
1812 (as defined here); the acceptable genus Hartlaubella Poche, 
1914, p. 76 (to accommodate Sertularia gelatinosa Pallas, 1766, 
p. 116, alone; discussion in Cornelius, in prep.); and the unaccept- 
able Paracalix Stechow, 1923a, p. 3, which under the Code is avail- 
able to receive the remainder. 

14. The name Paracalix has not been used since it was 
introduced. The type species of Paracalix, namely Campanularia 
pulcratheca Mulder & Trebilcock, 1914, p. 11 (by monotypy), was 
based on a deformed specimen of Campanularia sp., possibly 
C volubilis (Linnaeus, 1758); so that there are strong subjective 
grounds for regarding Paracalix and Campanularia as congeneric. 
Unless the name Campanularia were given the meaning proposed 
here (paragraphs 6-16, 2^) Paracalix would replace Campanularia, 
to the detriment of established usage. But designating C volubilis 
(Linnaeus, 1758) as type species of Campanularia would make 
Paracalix a very safe junior subjective synonym of Campanularia, 
and the problem would be resolved. It seems unlikely that the type 
species of Paracalix would ever again be regarded as a vaUd species 
by a serious worker. But if it were, then if necessary it could be 
removed to the genus Paracalix without affecting the stabihty of 
the name Campanularia. 

15. If the rules were appUed and the genus name 
Campanularia were restricted to the large, upright-growing species 
Sertularia verticillata Linnaeus, 1758, and the few closely allied 
species taxa listed in Stechow, 1919, and Naumov, 1960, 1969, 
then Campanularia would no longer be available for the remainder 
of the genus sens. auct. ; that is for the small, stoloniferous species 
with which the name is usually associated. This would cause con- 
fusion among a wide variety of biologists ranging from advanced 
course students and their teachers to developmental physiologists. 



212 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



ecologists and others engaged in research. Conservation of the 
existing widespread use (but not necessarily the sense) of 
Campanularia, and stability, would be achieved by setting aside 
Nutting's designation of S. verticillata Linnaeus, 1758, as type 
species of Campanularia; and admitting Naumov's (1960) designat- 
ion of 5". volubilis Linnaeus, 1758. I define the genus Campanularia 
as follows (after Cornehus, in prep.): stoloniferous and colonial 
CAMPANULARIIDAE, stolon not anastomosing; hydrothecae 
borne on pedicels inserted on the stolon at irregular intervals; 
sub-hydro thecal spherule present; hydrothecal diaphragm absent; 
no medusa stage. This definition expressly excludes the genus 
Orthopyxis J.L.R. Agassiz, 1862, pp. 297, 355, as redefined by 
Ralph, 1957, p. 834, and by Cornehus, in prep. But it happens 
that the species of Orthopyxis do not impinge on the immediate 
discussion. 

16. It should be stressed that the proposed type species of 
Campanularia Lamarck, 1816, is 5'er^Mtona yo/w^//w Linnaeus, 1758 
(=C. volubilis sens, auct., e.g. Hincks, 1868) and not S. volubilis 
sens. Ellis & Solander, 1786, p. 51 (usually subjectively referred to 
Clytia hemisphaerica (Linnaeus, 1767); details in Millard, 1966, 
p. 477 and Cornelius, in prep.). This point is particularly important 
since 'Sertularia volubilis Ellis & Solander' was designated as type 
species of the genus Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, p. 184, by Mayer, 
1910, p. 262. Since this is not the same as iS". volubilis Linnaeus, 
1758, Clytia is a genus based on a misidentified type species. Under 
Article 70a(i) the Commission is invited to use its plenary powers to 
designate the species that ElUs & Solander had before them, 
namely, Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856a, p. 359, as type 
species of the genus Clytia Lamouroux, 1812. The reasons are as 
follows. Elhs & Solander included among their indications of 
S. volubilis an illustration with a binominal name, that is to say 
Sertularia uniflora Elhs, 1768, pi. 19, fig. 9 (there being no related 
text). The Ellis, 1768, engraving was that used in the later, Elhs & 
Solander work so that the two narnes are objectively linked. 
However, the combination Sertularia uniflora had been used still 
earlier, by Pallas, 1766, p. 121, and Ellis's usage was homonymous. 
[The Pallas species was in fact a junior objective synonym of 
S. volubilis Linnaeus, 1758 — the other species; details in Cornehus, 
in prep.] The earliest unpreoccupied name which it is possible to 
hnk unequivocally with S. uniflora sens. Ellis, 1 768, is Campanularia 
johnstoni Alder, 1856a, pp. 359-360, pi. 13, fig. 8. Alder in his text 
related johnstoni to the illustration of Elhs & Solander, 1 786. The 
type species of the genus Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, should, 
therefore, be known as Clytia johnstoni (Alder, 1856a). Most 
authors have taken C johnstoni to be subjectively conspecific with 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 213 



Medusa hemisphaerica Linnaeus, 1161 (=Clytia hemisphaerica auct.); 
but the two are respectively hydroid and medusa stages in a genus 
with many unsolved taxonomic problems and there are still some 
doubts that they represent the same species (discussion in Cornelius, 
in prep.). 

17. Lamouroux, 1812, originally included three species in 
Clytia, cited as 'Sertularia volubilis Ell.', 'S. syringa Ell.' and 
'5. verticillata Ell.'. The references must be to Ellis & Solander, 
1786, and not to Elhs, 1755, since binominal names occur only in 
the later work. The nominal species concerned, as it happens, were 
all included in Linnaeus, 1758. 

18. Although the name Medusa hemisphaerica Linnaeus, 
1767, has been attributed to Gronovius 1760, p. 38, by some 
authors his usage was not strictly binominal (Millard, 1966, p. 477). 
Similarly, Bedot's implication (1901, p. 486) that Houttuyn, 1770, 
p. 423, might have introduced the name hemisphaerica so early as 
1761, is misleading. Houttuyn did not use the words 'Medusa 
hemisphaerica' in a binominal sense; and the volume in which they 
appeared was dated 1 770, conveniently following most of the other 
early works in question. 

19. Lastly, Medusa hemisphaerica Linnaeus, 1767, is type 
species of the genus Thaumantias Eschscholtz, 1829, p. 102 
(designated by Forbes, 1848, p. 41). Thaumantias is hence a junior 
subjective synonym of Clytia. The name Thaumantias was once 
widely used but no longer finds a place in standard works (e.g. 
Kramp, 1961). The subjective synonymy of hemisphaerica with the 
type species of Clytia [namely C johnstoni (Alder, 185a; see 
paragraph 16)] is so strong as to make unhkely the future resurrection 
of Thaumantias. Even if the two species were recognized it is most 
improbable that they would be placed in separate genera. 

4. Other names 

20. If the present proposals are adopted certain unfamiliar 
genus and subgenus names will fall, to the advantage of hydroid 
nomenclature. 

21. The genus Campalaria Hartlaub, 1897, p. 449, was 
introduced to embrace solely the nominal species Campalaria 
conferta Hartlaub, 1897. The name Campalaria has apparently 
been used only once since its introduction, by Hamond, 1957, 
p. 315, in the combination Laomedea (Campalaria) conferta. The 
species, itself now regarded as invaUd (CorneHus, in prep.), falls 
within the generic diagnosis given for Laomedea in paragraph 4; 
and if the proposals in paragraph 28 are accepted, the genus name 
Campalaria will be regarded as a junior subjective synonym of 
Laomedea as here understood. If the proposals are not accepted. 



214 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



then Campalaria would have to replace Laomedea, to the detriment 
of established usage. 

22. The subgenus Eulaomedea Broch, 1910, p. 189, has as 
type species Laomedea flexuosa Alder, 1857, p. 122, by monotypy. 
The name would fall as a junior objective synonym of Laomedea. 
Stechow, 1923b, p. 95, referred Eulaomedea to Laomedea, not 
recognizing the subgenus, a course with which I agree. But 
Splettstosser, 1924, p. 424, and Hummelinck, 1936, pp. 51, 57, 
interpreted the subgenus Eulaomedea widely, that is in the sense 
in which the authors listed in paragraph 3 understood the genus 
Laomedea. The genus name Laomedea was applied by Broch, 
1910, 1928, Splettstosser, 1924, and HummeUnck, 1936, to a large 
group of species comprising, they said, three subgenera: Eulaomedea 
(=Laomedea s. str.), Obelia Peron & Lesueur, 1810, and 
Gonothyraea Allman, 1864. But the great majority of authors have 
used Laomedea in the narrow sense and regarded it and Obelia and 
Gonothyraea as full genera. 

23. Apart from subgeneric use without comment by 
Vervoort, 1946, pp. 284-285, also Vervoort, 1959, p. 316, the 
name Eulaomedea was not used again until Rees & Thursfield, 
1965, p. 101, employed it as a genus name, but likewise without 
proper explanation. Rees wrote: 'The reason for adopting 
Eulaomedea in preference to Laomedea will be discussed elsewhere; 
it is sufficient here to state that the type species of Laomedea is 
a true Obelia producing [a] medusa'; indicating that he had realized 
the synonymy between Obelia and Laomedea mentioned in 
paragraph 2. The only other use of Eulaomedea of which I am 
aware was by Millard, 1975, p. 223, who did not comment on the 
nomenclatural problems and who used the name in the sense of 
Laomedea as understood here. Reversing my previous opinion 
(Cornehus, 1975, pp. 253-254) I recommend conserving the name 
Laomedea s. str. Although Eulaomedea is available under the Code 
it has hardly been used. In any case, the oldest available name for 
the genus under discussion would be Campalaria (see paragraph 21), 
not Eulaomedea. 

24. The subgenus Paralaomedea was apparently introduced 
by Broch, 1928, p. 74, as Laomedea (Paralaomedea). The taxon was 
actually first proposed and defined by Splettstosser, 1924, pp. 
424-425, but given neither formal subgeneric rank nor a name. 
Broch, 1928, gave it both, applying the new mmt Paralaomedea. 
The subgenus has always included only the species Laomedea 
neglecta Alder, 1856b, p. 440, pi. 16, figs 1-2, which is type species 
by monotypy. Hummelinck, 1936, p. 51, and Vervoort, 1946, 
p. 285, followed Broch 's usage, Vervoort only in his key to 
species; but the name seems otherwise unused. I have concurred 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 215 



(Cornelius, in prep.) with these authors that there might be a case 
for referring the species neglecta to a supra-specific taxon distinct 
from other species of Laomedea, on the basis of its reproductive 
structures. But the acknowledged medusoid nature of the female 
gonophore of neglecta, described by Splettstosser, 1924, suggests 
that there are not good grounds for a separation. But if a separation 
were upheld the name Paralaomedea would be both available and 
acceptable taxonomically. Meanwhile, and subject to the present 
proposals being accepted, I regard the subgenus Paralaomedea as 
a junior subjective synonym of the genus name Laomedea. 

25. Broch, 1910, p. 184, and Broch, 1928, p. 73, referred 
all CAMPANULARIIDAE lacking a hydrothecal diaphragm to the 
genus Campanularia Lamarck, 1816. He recognized two subgenera: 
Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, in which medusa release occurred; and 
Eucampanularia Broch, 1910, p. 184, in which the gonophore was 
sessile (i.e. in which the medusa was retained and vestigial). 
Hummelinck, 1936, p. 49-50, and Vervoort, 1946, pp. 268-269, 
followed Broch's, 1910, usage. But all subsequent workers have 
understood the genus Campanularia in the more restricted sense, 
equivalent to Broch's subgenus Eucampanularia; and have re- 
instated Clytia to full genus status. The subgeneric name 
Eucampanularia has apparently not been used again. The genera 
Clytia and Campanularia s. str. (=Broch's Eucampanularia) have 
been widely regarded as distinct, and there seems no value to 
classification in following Broch (1910, 1928) in uniting them as 
subgenera of a single genus. Further, his action was nomenclaturally 
invalid since it is logically untenable to treat Clytia Lamouroux, 
1812, as a subgenus of the younger genus Campanularia Lamarck, 
1816. 

26. The species Sertularia volubilis Linnaeus, 1758, p. 811, 
has been designated type species oi Eucampanularia Broch, 1910 
(by Cornelius, in prep.). If the present proposal is adopted, that 
volubilis should become type species of Campanularia Lamarck, 
1816, then the ^nbg&rm?, namt Eucampanularia Broch, 1910, would 
fall in the objective synonymy of the genus name Campanularia 
Lamarck, 1816 (see paragraph 28). 

27. Some names derived from Campanularia and Laomedea 
are considered as unjustified emendations or incorrect subsequent 
spellings (Cornelius, in prep.), and hence as invalid or not available: 
Campanula Westendorp, 1843, p. 23; Lomedea Dana, 1846, p. 689; 
Campanulata J.L.R. Agassiz, 1862, p. 354; Clytea Wright, 1862, 
p. 308;Clythia J.L.R. Agassiz, 1862, pi. 2S; Clythia van Beneden, 
1866, p. 166; Cmpanularia Mulder & Trebilcock, 1914, p. 11; 
Laomedia Nutting, 1915, p. 123; Eulaomeda Rees & Thursfield, 
1965, p. 102. 



216 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



5. Proposals 
28. To preserve the established use of the genus names 
Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, and Campanularia Lamarck, 1816, 
the Commission is therefore requested : 

(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to set aside all designations of type species 
hitherto made for the nominal genus Laomedea 
Lamouroux, 1812, and having done so to 
designate the nominal species Laomedea 
flexuosa Alder, 1857, as type species of that 
genus; 

(b) to set aside all designations of type species for 
the nominal genus Campanularia Lamarck, 
1816, other than that of Sertularia volubilis 
Linnaeus, 1758, by Naumov, 1960; 

(c) to set aside all designations of type species for 
the nominal genus Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, 
and having done so to designate the nominal 
species Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856a, 
as type species of that genus; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by designation under 
the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Laomedea 
flexuosa Alder, 1857; 

(b) Campanularia Lamarck, 1816 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by designation by 
Naumov, 1960, ratified by use of the plenary 
powers in (1) (b) above, Sertularia volubilis 
Linnaeus, 1758; 

(c) Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 (gender: feminine), 
type species, by designation under the plenary 
powers in ( 1 ) (c) above, Campanularia johnstoni 
Alder, 1856a; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) flexuosa Alder, 1857, as published in the 
binomen Laomedea flexuosa (specific name of 
type species oi Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812); 

(b) volubilis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the 
binomen Sertularia volubilis (specific name of 
type species of Campanularia Lamarck, 1816); 

(c) johnstoni Alder, 1856a, as published in the 
binomen Campanularia johnstoni (specific 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 217 



name of type species of Clytia Lamouroux, 
1812). 



Acknowledgements 
I am deeply grateful to Professor W. Vervoort, Rijksmuseum van 
Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, for detailed advice during the prepar- 
ation of this submission, and for criticizing the manuscript. Drafts 
of the paper were criticized also by Dr. N.A.H. Millard, South 
African Museum, Cape Town, by Dr. R.B. Williams of Tring, and by 
the Secretary of the Commission; and to all of these I am gratefully 
indebted. 



REFERENCES 

AGASSIZ, J.L.R., 1862. Contributions to the natural history of the United 
States of America. Second monograph. Vol. 4. Boston (Little, Brown & 
Co.) and London (Tnibner & Co.), pp. i-viii, 1-381, (1)-(12), pis 
20-35, text-figs 1-50. 

ALDER, J., 1856a. A notice of some new genera and species of British hydroid 
zoophytes. Ann. Mag. not. Hist. (2) vol. 18, pp. 353-362. 

1856b. Descriptions of three new British zoophytes. Ann. Mag. not. 

Hist. (2) vol. 18, pp. 439-441. 

1857. A catalogue of the zoophytes of Northumberland and Durham. 

Trans Tyneside Nat. Fid CI. vol. 3, pp. 93-162. (Although the wrapper 
date is 1856, a footnote on p. 87 of the volume is dated 29 January, 
1857.) 

ALLMAN, G.J., 1959. Notes on the hydroid zoophytes. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 
(3)vol. 4, pp. 137-144. 

1864. On the construction and Umitation of genera among the 

Hydroida. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3) vol. 13, pp. 345-380. 

BARRETT, J.H., & YONGE, CM., 1958. Collins pocket guide to the sea 
shore. London (Collins), pp. 1-272, pis 1-40 + I-XL, text-figs 1-179. 

BEDOT, M., 1 901 . Mate'riaux pour servir a I'histdire des hydroides. Ire pe'riode. 
Revue Suisse Zool. vol. 9, pp. 379-515. 

1905. Mate'riaux pour servir a I'histoire des hydroides. 2me periode 

(1821 a 1850). Revue Suisse Zool. vol. 13, pp. 1-183. 

1910. Materiaux pour servir a I'histoire des hydroi'des. 3me periode 

(1851 k ISll). Revue Suisse Zool. vol. 18, pp. 189-490. 

1912. Materiaux pour servir a I'histoire des hydroi'des. 4me periode 

(1872 a 1880). Revue Suisse Zool. vol. 20, pp. 213-469. 



218 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



1916. Materiaux pour servir a I'liistoire des hydroides. 5rae p€riode 

(1881 a \%9Q). Revue Suisse Zool. vol. 24, pp. 1-349. 

I 1918. Materiaux pour servir a I'histoire des hydroides. 6me p6riode 

(1891 a 1900). Revue Suisse Zool. vol. 26 (SuppL), pp. 1-376. 

1925. Materiaux pour servir a I'histoire des hydrofdes. 7me p^riode 

(1901 i 1910). Revue suisse Zool. vol. 32 (SuppL), pp. 1-657. 

BENEDEN, P.-J. VAN, 1866. Recherches sur la faune Uttorale de Belgique 
(Polypes). jWe'm. Acad. R. Sci. Lett. Belg. vol. 36 (2), pp. 1-207. 

BROCH, H., 1905. Nordsee-Hydroiden von dem norwegischen Fischereidampfer 
'Michael Sars' in den Jahren 1903-1904 gesammelt, nebst Bemerkungen 
Uber die Systematik der Tecaphoren Hydroiden. Bergens Mus. Arb. 
(1905) (6), pp. 1-26. 

1910. Die Hydroiden der arktischen Meere. Fauna arct. vol. 5, pp. 

127-248. 

1928. Hydrozoa I. Tierwelt N.- u. Ostsee vol. 3(b), pp. 1-100. 

BUCHANAN, J.B., 1957. The hydroid fauna of the Gold Coast. Revue Zool. 

Sot. afr. vol. 56, pp. 349-372. 
CORNELIUS, P.F.S., 1975. The hydroid species of Obelia (Coelenterata, 
Hydrozoa: Campanulariidae), with notes on the medusa stage. Bull. 
Br. Mus. not. Hist. (Zool.) vol. 28, pp. 249-293. 

(In preparation.) Hydroids and medusae of the family Campanulariidae 

recorded from the eastern North Atlantic, with a World synopsis of 
genera. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.) 

DANA, J.D., 1846, 1849. United States Exploring Expedition during the years 
1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842. Under the Command of Charles Wilkes, 
U.S.N. Zoophytes. Philadelphia (Lea & Blanchard), vol. 1 (1846) 
text, pp. i-vii, 1-740; vol. 2 (1849) atlas, pp. 1-12, pis 1-61. (Dating of 
this work follows Haskell, 1942, pp. 50, 54.) 

ELLIS, J., 1755. An essay towards a natural history of the corallines, and other 
marine productions of the like kind, commonly found on the coasts of 
Great Britain and Ireland. London (John Ellis [himself] ), pp. i-xvii, 
10 pp. of contents (unpaginated), 1-103, pis 1-38 + one unnumbered. 

1768. An account of the Actina sociata, or clustered animal-flower, 

lately found on the sea-coasts of the new-ceded Islands. Phil. Trans. 
R. Soc. London (1767) vol. 57, pp. 428-437. 

& SOLLANDER. D.C., 1786. The natural history of many curious and 

uncommon zoophytes, collected from various parts of the globe. 
London (B. White &P. Elmsly),pp.i-xii, 1-206, pis 1-63 + pp. 207-208 
following. Edited by Martha Watt. 

ESCHSCHOLTZ, P., 1829. System der Acalephen. Berlin (F. Dummler), 

pp. i-vi (p. vi being misnumbered iv), 1-190, pis 1-16. 
FORBES, E., 1848. A monograph of the British naked-eyed medusae: with 

figures of all the species. London (Ray Society), pp. i-vi (unnumbered), 

1-104, pis 1-13. 
GRONOVIUS L.-T., 1760. Observationes de animalculis aliquot marinae aquae 

innatantibus atque in Uttoribus Belgicis obviis. Acta helv. vol. 4, pp. 

35-40. 
HAMOND, R., 1957. Notes on the Hydrozoa of the Norfolk coast. /. Linn. 

Soc. London (Zool.) vol. 43. pp. 294-324. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 219 



HARTLAUB, C, 1897. Die Hydromedusen Helgolands. Zweiter Bericht. 

Wiss. Meeresunters. Helgol. (N.F.) vol. 2 (Heft 1), pp. 449-536. 
HASKELL, D.C., 1942. The United States Exploring Expedition, 1838-1842 

and its publications 1844-1874. New York (The New York Public 

Library), pp. i-xii, 1-188, pis 1-5 (unnumbered). 
HINCKS, T., 1853. Further notes on British zoophytes, with descriptions of 

new species. >lnw. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) vol. 11, pp. 178-185. 

1868. A history of the British hydroid zoophytes. London (Van Voorst), 

vol. 1 (text) pp. i-lxvii, 1-338, text-figs 1-45, frontis.; vol. 2 (plates) 
pis 1-67. (In most copies each plate carries the date 1869, but in some 
the date is 1868. All examples of vol. 2 I have seen have the title page 
dated 1868, regardless of the date on each plate.) 

HOUTTUYN, M., 1770. Natuurlyke Historie of uitvoerige beschryving der 
Dieren, Planten en Mineraalen, volgens het Samenstel van den Heer 
Linnaeus. Met naauwkeurige Afbeeldingen. Eeerste Deels, veertiende 
Stuk. De Wormen en Slakken. Amsterdam (De Erven van F. Houttuyn), 
pp.i-vi, 1-532. 

HUMMELINCK, P.W., 1936. Hydropoliepen. Flora Fauna Zuiderzee (Suppl.), 
pp. 41-64. 

KRAMP, P.L., 1935. Polypdyr (Coelenterata). L Ferskvandspolypper og 
Goplepolypper. Danm. Fauna vol. 41, pp. 1-208. 

1938. Marine Hydrozoa, a. Hydroida. Zoology Iceland vol. 2(5A), 

pp. 1-82. 

1961. Synopsis of the medusae of the World. /. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 

vol.40, pp. 1-469. 

LAMARCK, J.B.P.A. DE, 1816. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertebres. 

Vol. 2. Paris (Verdiere), pp. 1-568. 
LAMOUROUX, J.V.F., 1812. Extrait d'un memotre sur la classification des 

polypiers coralligfines non entierement pierreux. Nouv. Bull. sci. Soc. 

philom. Paris vol. 3, pp. 181-188. 
LELOUP, E., 1952. Cotlenteres. Faune Belg., pp. 1-283. 
LINNAEUS, C, 1758. Systema naturae. 10th edition. Vol. 1. Holmiae (L. 

Salvii), pp. i-iv, 1-824. 

1767. Systema naturae. 12th edition. Vol. 1 , pars 2. Holmiae (L. Salvii), 

pp. 533-1328 + 36 pp. of indexes and appendix, unpaginated. 

MARINE BIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, 1957. Plymouth marine fauna. 
Plymouth (Marine Biological Association of the U.K.), 3rd edition, 
pp. i-xliii, 1-460. 

MAYER, A.G., 1910. Medusae of the World. Volume II. The hydromedusae. 
Washington (Carnegie Institution), pp. 231-498, i-xv, pis 30-55, text- 
figs 121-327. 

MILLARD, N.A.H., 1966. The Hydrozoa of the south and west coasts of 
South Africa. Part III. The Gymnoblastea and small families of 
Calyptoblastea. yl/in. S. Afr. Mus. vol. 48, pp. 427-487. 

1975. Monograph on the Hydroida of southern Africa. Ann. S. Afr. 

Mus. vol. 68, pp. 1-513. 

MULDER, J.F., & TREBILCOK, R.E., 1914. Victorian Hydroida. With 

description of new species. Geelong Nat. vol. 6, pp. 6-15. 
NAUMOV, D.V., 1960. Gidroidy i gidromeduzy morskUch, solonovatovodnykh 



220 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



i presnovodnykh basseinov S.S.S.R. Fauna S.S.S.R. vol. 70, pp. 1-626. 
1969. Hydroids and hydromedusae of the U.S.S.R. Fauna S.S.S.R. 
vol. 70, pp. 1-660. (Israel Program for Scientific Translations cat. no. 
5108.) 



NUTTING, C.C., 1915. American hydroids. Part III. The Campanularidae and 

the BonnevieUidae. Spec. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus., pp. 1-126. 
PALLAS, P.S., 1766. Elenchus zoophytorum. The Hague (F. Varrentrapp), 

pp. i-xxvii, 1-451. 
PERON, F., & LESUEUR, C.-A., 1810. Tableau des caracteres generiques et 

specifiques de toutes les espfeces de meduses connues jusqu'i ce jour. 

Annls. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris (1809) vol. 14, pp 325-366. (Dating followrs 

Sherborn, CD., \9\A,Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) vol. 13, pp. 365-368.) 
POCHE, F., 1914. Das sytem der Coelenterata. Archiv. Naturgesch. vol. 80 

(Abt. A, Heft 5), pp. 47-1 28. 
PRENANT, M., & BOBIN, G., 1956. Bryozoaires. Premiere partie. Entoproctes, 

phylactolemes, ctenostomes. Faune Fr. vol. 60, pp. 1-398. 
RALPH, P.M., 1957. New Zealand thecate hydroids. Part I. Campanulariidae 

and CampanuUnidae. Trans. R. Soc. N.Z. vol. 84, pp. 81 1-854. 
REES, W.J., & THURSFIELD, S., 1965. The hydroid collections of James 

Ritchie. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. (B) vol. 69, pp. 34-220. 
ROBINS, M.W., 1 969. The marine flora and fauna of the Isles of Scilly. Cnidaria 

and Ctenophora. /. nat. Hist. vol. 3, pp. 329-343. 
SPLETTSTOSSER, W., 1924. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Gattung Laomedea 

(sensu Broch). Zool. Jb. (Syst.) vol. 48, pp. 367-432. 
STECHOW, E., 1919. Neue Ergebnisse auf dem Gebiete der Hydroidenfor- 

schxxng. Miinchener Med. Wochenschr. (1919) vol. 30, pp. 852-853. 

1923a. Neue Hydroiden der Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition, nebst 

Bemerkungen liber einige andre Formen. Zool. Anz. vol. 56, pp. 1-20. 

1923b. Zur Kenntnis der Hydroidenfauna des Mittelmeeres, Amerikas 

und anderer Gebiete. II Tiel. Zool. Jb. (Syst.) vol. 47, pp. 29-270. 

TEISSIER, G., 1965. Inventaire de la faune marine de Roscoff. Cnidaires - 
ctenaires. Roscoff (Station Biologique de Roscoff), pp. 1-64. 

THOMPSON, J. v., 1830. Memoir V. On Polyzoa, a new animal discovered as 
an inhabitant of some zoophites — with a description of the newly 
instituted genera of Pedicellaria and Vesicularia, and their species. 
Zoological Researches, and Illustrations: or natural History of non- 
descript or imperfectly known animals, vol. 1 (4), pp. 89-102. (Dating 
of this work follows Sherborn, CD., 1922, Index Animalium part 1, 
p. cxxii.) 

VERVOORT, W., 1946. Hydrozoa (C I). A. Hydropolypen. Fauna Ned. vol. 
14, pp. 1-336. 

1959. The Hydroida of the tropical west coast of Africa. Atlantide 

Rep. vol. 5, pp. 211-325. 

WESTENDORP, G.D., 1843. Recherches sur les polypiers flexibles de la 
Belgique et particulierement des environs d'Ostende. Annls Soc. 
Medico-Chirurgicale Bruges vol. 4, pp. ? (not seen). (Reprinted with 
same title, 1843, Bruges (F. de Pachtere), pp. 1-48, pi. 1 ; seen.) 

WRIGHT, T.S., 1862. On the reproduction of Thaumantias inconspicua. 
Q. J. microsc. Sci. (N.S.) vol. 2, pp. 221-222, 308. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 221 



S EM BUS MARGIN A TA PANZER, 1799 

(INSECTA, PLECOPTERA): ADDITIONAL STEPS NEEDED 

TO CONSERVE THIS NAME. Z.N.(S.)1799 

By the Secretary, International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature 

INTRODUCTION 

The present application began in 1967 with the publication by 
Dr Carlo Consiglio (University of Rome) of a paper in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 24, pp. 246-7 in which he showed, first, that Perla 
maxima (Scopoli, 1763), originally described in Phryganea, was 
applied by most authors (following Klapalek, 1923) to Perla grandis 
Rambur, 1842 (of which Perla alpicola Klapalek, 1900 is a 
synonym); and, secondly, that it was in fact a senior synonym of 
Perla marginata (Panzer, 1799), originally described in Semblis, a 
name in general use. He therefore asked for the suppression of 
Phryganea maxima ScopoU, 1763. 

2. In 1969 Professor Brinck communicated a resolution of 
the Fourth Symposium on Plecoptera in opposition to Dr 
Consiglio's proposal. The Commission's Secretariat therefore took 
no further action on the case. In 1978, however, Professor Brinck 
wrote again to draw attention to Zwick's 1973 monograph on 
Plecoptera {Das Tierreich vol. 94) in which Dr Consiglio's view was 
upheld. He said that this view was now supported by him as well as 
by Professor lilies and Dr Zwick (both of Limnologische 
Flussstation, Schlitz, BRD). In further correspondence, he agreed 
that the relationship between Phryganea maxima Scopoli, 1763 and 
Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799 would be better settled by the 
'relative precedence' procedure than by outright suppression of the 
senior synonym. 

3. Dr Consiglio's original proposal, modified to take 
account of the 'relative precedence' procedure, was accordingly put 
to the Commission on 20 August 1979 in Voting Paper (1979)10 and 
was accepted by 17 votes to 2, with one abstention and three late 
affirmative votes. It was only when I came to prepare the Opinion 
giving effect to the Commission's decision that I discovered that 
Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799 — the name given precedence by 
the Commission's vote — was technically invalid as a junior primary 
homonym of Semblis marginata Fabricius, 1793. This opened up a 
whole range of further complications, which would never have been 
resolved without the patient and generous help of Professor Brinck 
and Dr Peter Zwick, for which I am most grateful. 



222 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



THE IDENTITY OF 
SEMBLIS MARGINATA FABRICIUS, 1793 

4. Semblis marginata Fabricius, 1793, seems to have been 
completely overlooked for nearly 140 years. The only citations 
known to Dr Zwick are: 

Pictet, 1833, Ann. Sci. nat. vol. 28, p. 53 
Burmeister, 1839, Handb. Ent. vol. II (2)(ii), p. 880 
Newman, 1839, Mag. nat. Hist. N.S. vol. 3, p. 36 
Pictet, [1842], Hist. nat. Ins., Monogr. Nevr., Perlides, p. 
200. 

In all these cases the name is given as an invalid, though senior, 

synonym of Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799. 

5 . Through the kindness of Dr Tuxen and Professor Brinck , 
Fabricius's type of Semblis marginata was lent to Dr Zwick for 
study. He found it to be a female of Marthamea vitripennis 
(Burmeister, 1839). He further reported: "Perla vitripennis 
Burmeister, 1839, p. 880, was described recognizably and has been 
in continuous use at least since the excellent redescription by Pictet, 
[1842], based on the female type which is now lost. P. bicolor 
Burmeister, 1839, has been thought to be the male of P. vitripennis 
since Pictet, [1842] and the surviving type that I saw some years ago 
confirms this view. There has been no other ambiguity about the 
identity of P. vitripennis and the name has been used in a uniform 
way all the time. This alone makes it worth preserving, and warrants 
the suppression of its unused senior synonym Semblis marginata 
Fabricius, 1793, which has never been considered to denote a valid 
species, and which has been completely forgotten for over 100 years. 
This is the more desirable because Perla vitripennis is widely known 
as the type species of Marthamea Klapalek, 1907.' 



THE NOMENCLATURAL VALIDITY OF 
PERLA VITRIPENNIS BURMEISTER, 1839 

6. The nomenclatural validity of Perla vitripennis 
Burmeister, 1839 clearly depends on the action of the first reviser 
who considered that name and P. bicolor as synonyms and clearly 
selected one as the valid name. It has not been easy to establish the 
facts on this point. Schneider, 1848, Uebers. Arb. Verdnd. schles. 
Ges. vaterl. Kultur im Jahre 1847, p. 113, was the first definitely to 
treat both names as denoting one species; but when he spoke of 
males he used the n-^^ie P. bicolor, and when of females, the name 
P. vitripennis. In 1885, Z. Entomol. Breslau, p. 30, he used P. 
vitripennis as the valid name, but did not cite P. bicolor as a 
synonym. 

7. In 1888, Rostock, Neuroptera germanica, die Netzfliigler 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 223 



Deutschlands (Zwickau), p. 162, clearly used P. vitripennis 
Burmeister as the valid name (by printing it in bold-faced type) and 
cited P. bicolor as a synonym. This first reviser action is the 
foundation of all current practice, from Klapalek, 1907, Rospr. 
Ceske Akad., ser. 2, vol. 16(16), p. 19, onwards. No action by the 
Commission is necessary on this point. 

8. The following references satisfy the requirements of 
Article 79b in demonstrating usage of Perla vitripennis Burmeister, 
1839, as a valid name (the last such use of P. bicolor was by Albarda, 
1889, Cat. Nevropteres Pays-Bas): 

1940. Claassen, P.W. Cat. Plecoptera of the World. Mem. Cornell Univ. agric. 

exper. Station, vol. 232, pp. 1-235 
1942. Vasiliu, G.D. & Costea, A., Syst. Uberpriifung Steinfliegen (Plecoptera) 

Rumaniens und deren geogr. Ausdehnungsflache. Anal. Inst. 

Cere. pise. Roman, vol. 1, pp. 191-204 
1951. Despax, R. Plecopteres. Faune de France, vol. 55, pp. 1-280 
1955. lilies, J. Steinfliegen oder Plecoptera. In Dahl (ed.), Tierwelt Deutschlands, 

vol. 43, pp. 1-150 
1957. Winkler, O. Plecoptera slovenska. Biol, prdce vol. 3(7), pp. 1-98 
1959. Aubert, J. Plecoptera. Insecta helvetica, vol. 1, pp. 1-138 

1963. Les Plecopteres de la peninsule iberique. Eos, vol. 39, pp. 23-107 

1966. Zhiltzova, L.A. (Plecoptera of European USSR outside the Caucasus). 

Entomol. Obozr vol. 45, pp. 525-549 
1966. lilies, J. Katalogderrezenten Plecoptera. Das Tierreich,\o\. 82, pp. I-XXX, 

pp. 1-631 

1966. Berthelemy, C. Rech. ecol. biogeogr. Plecopteres et Coleopteres d'eau 

courante (Hydraena et Elminthidae) des Pyrenees. Ann. Limnol. vol. 
2, pp. 227-^58 

1967. Russev, B. (Hydrobiol. invest. Marica, II). Bull. Inst. Zool. 

Mus. Sofia vol. 24, pp. 87-99 
1972. Zwick, P. Die Plecopteren Pictets und Burmeisters, mit Angaben iiber 

weiteren Arten. Rev. Suisse Zool. vol. 78 (1971), pp. 1123-1194 
1973. Insecta: Plecoptera. Phylogenetisches System und Katalog. Das 

Tierreich, vol. 94, pp. I-XXXII, 1-465 
1974. Kis, B. Plecoptera. Fauna Rep. soc. Romania vol. 8 (7), pp. 1-273 
1980. Kittel, W. Widelnice (Plecoptera) Rzeki Pilicy, I. Acta Univ. lodz. ser. 2. vol. 

9, pp. 79-118. 

DESIGNATION OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF 
MARTHAMEA KLAPALEK, 1907 

9. Marthamea was established by Klapalek, 1907, Rospr. 
Ceske Akad., ser. 2, vol. 16 (16), p. 19, for P. vitripennis 
Burmeister, 1839 and P. selysi Pictet, [1842], p. 208. Neither was 
designated as type species. It was not until 1923, Colls, zool. Selys 
Longchamps, p. 97, that he clearly designated P. vitripennis as type 
species. At the same time he cited P. vitripennis and P. bicolor 
together and clearly chose the former as the valid name. 



224 Bull. zool. Norn. , vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



CONCLUSIONS 

10. The International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature is therefore asked to take the following actions, in 
addition to those that it has already taken on Voting Paper (1979)10: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific 
name marginata Fabricius, 1793, as pubHshed in 
the binomen Semblis marginata, for the purposes of 
both the Law of Priority and the Law of 
Homonymy; 

(2) to place the generic name Marthamea Klapalek, 
1907 (gender: feminine), type species, by 
subsequent designation by Klapalek, 1923, Perla 
vitripennis Burmeister, 1839, on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the specific name vitripennis Burmeister, 
1839, as published in the binomen Perla vitripennis 
(specific name of type species of Marthamea 
Klapalek, 1907) on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology; 

(4) to place the specific name marginata Fabricius, 
1793, as published in the binomen Semblis 
marginata, on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, as suppressed 
under the plenary powers in (1) above. 

This application is supported by Dr Peter Zwick, Professor Dr 
Joachim lilies, and Professor Dr Per Brinck. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 225 



NOMIOIDES SCHENCK, 1866: PROPOSED DESIGNATION 

OF TYPE SPECIES (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA, 

HALICTIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2178 

By Yu. A. Pesenko and I.M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, 
Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad, USSR) 

1 . Schenck, 1866, p. 333, established a new genus Nomioides 
for one species, Andrena pulchella Jurine, 1807 (with Apis parvula 
Fabricius, 1798 cited in synonymy). There was no redescription of 
the species but a reference was given to a previous good description 
oiA. pulchella by Schenck, 1859, p. 295). 

2. It was shown by Mocsary, 1879, p. 30, and accepted by 
Handlirsch, 1888, pp. 398-399 and Bluthgen, 1925, p. 7, that 
Schenck, 1859, has misidentified Andrena pulchella. Nomioides 
pulchellus Jurine sensu Schenck, 1859, 1866, non Jurine, 1807, is 
identical with Apis minutissima Rossi, 1790, p. 109, while Andrena 
pulchella Jurine, 1807 is a junior synonym of Andrena variegata 
Olivier, 1789, p. 139, now Nomioides variegatus. The identity of 
Apis parvula Fabricius is doubtful; it is most probably a synonym of 
Nomioides minutissimus (Rossi) or of some other related species. 

3. As Schenck misidentified the type species of his new 
genus, the type species should be designated by the Commission 
(Code, Art. 70a). 

4. Sandhouse, 1943, p. 578, and Michener, 1965, p. 183, 
1978, p. 504, indicated as type species of Nomioides 'Andrena 
pulchella Jurine, 1807 = Apis minutissima Rossi, 1790', but this 
synonymy is wrong (see above). No other citations of the type 
species of Nomioides are known to us. 

5. It is evident that A. minutissima Rossi {= N. pulchella 
sensu Schenck), i.e. the species actually before Schenck, and r\o\.A. 
pulchella Jurine, i.e. the species named by Schenck, is understood as 
type species by all later authors. For example, Bluthgen, 1925, p. 4, 
distinguished the N. minutissima group which was later treated by 
Cockerell, 1935, p. 90, and Bluthgen, 1937, p. 3, as the subgenus 
Nomioides s.str. , while Bluthgen, 1937, p. 3, named the N. variegata 
group as the subgenus Eunomioides . Therefore designation oiApis 
minutissima as type species of Nomioides seems to be the best 
solution. 

6. An additional problem is the gender of the name 
Nomioides. As indicated by Bluthgen, 1925, p. 6, Schenck, 
Handlirsch, Morawitz and Margetti used the name as feminine, and 
Mocsary, Friese, Cockerell, Alfken, Gribodo and Debski as 
masculine, while if we consider the origin of -ides from the Greek 
eidos, the name would be neuter. In the International Code of 



226 Bull. zool. Norn. , vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



Botanical Nomenclature the names ending in -oides are regarded as 
feminine (Recommendation 75A(4)) while in the International 
Code of Zoological Nomenclature such names are cited as examples 
of mascuhne (Art. 30a(ii)). Bliithgen, 1925, accepted the gender as 
feminine following Schenck's original view, and this gender was 
used by all subsequent authors. If we change the gender to 
masculine according to the Zoological Code, the endings of 135 
available specific names in Nomioides must be changed. However, 
we consider that an exception from the Code is not warranted. 

7. Nomioides is accepted as distinct by all modern workers. 
It includes 65 species which are distributed in all the Old World 
except the northern part of the Palaearctic. 

8. In accordance with the above, the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all fixations of 
type species for the nominal genus Nomioides 
Schenck made prior to the ruling now asked for, 
and having done so, to designate Apis minutissima 
Rossi, 1790, as type species of this genus; 

(2) to place the generic name Nomioides Schenck, 
1866 (gender: masculine), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in 1 
above. Apis minutissima Rossi, 1790, on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the specific name minutissima Rossi, 1790 
as published in the binomen Apis minutissima 
(specific name of type species of Nomioides 
Schenck, 1866) on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology. 

REFERENCES 

BLUTHGEN, P., 1925. Die Bienengattung Nomioides Schenck. Stett. entomol. 

Z/g, vol. 85, pp. 1-100. 
1937. Halictinae (Hymenoptera: Apidae) von den Kanarischen Inseln. 

Comment. i>/o/., vol. 6, (11), pp. 1-11. 
COCKERELL, T.D.A., 1935. Scientific results of the Vernay-Lang Kalahari 

Expedition, March to September, 1930. Hymenoptera (Apoidea). Ann. 

Transvaal Mus., vol. 17, pp. 63-94. 
HANDLIRSCH, A., 1888. Die BienengaUung Nomioides Schenck. Verh. zooL- 

bot. Ges. Wien, vol. 38, pp. 395^05. 
MICHENER, Ch. D., 1965. A classification of the bees of the AustraHan and 

South Pacific regions. Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 130, pp. 1-362. 
1978. The classification of Halictine bees: tribes and Old World non-parasitic 

genera with strong venation. Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., vol. 51, pp. 501-538. 
MOCSARY, A., 1879. Data nova ad faunam hymenopterorum Hungariae 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 227 



meridionalis. Mathem. es. term. Kdzl. (Publ. math. phys. Acad. Hung. Sci.) 

vol. 16, pp. 1-70. 
OLIVIER, G.A., 1789. Encyclopedic methodique, Histoire naturelle, vol. 4, 

Insectes. 
ROSSI, P., 1790. Fauna Etrusca, vol. 2. Liburni (Pisis). 
SANDHOUSE, G.A., 1943. The type species ofthe genera and subgenera of bees. 

Proc. U.S. nat. Mus.,\o\. 92, pp. 519-619. 
SCHENCK, A., 1859. Die nassauischen Bienen. Revision und Erganzung der 

friiheren Bearbeitungen (Jahrbiicher des Vereins fiir Naturkunde im 

Herzogthum Nassau Heft 7, 9. und 10). Jahrb. Ver. Naturk. Nassau, vol. 14, 

pp. 1^15. 
1866. Verzeichniss der nassauischen Hymenoptera Aculeata mit 

Hinzufiigungderubrigendeutschen Arten. Berlin entomol. Zeitschr. vol. 10, 

pp. 317-369. 



228 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 3, July, 1981 



CORRECTIONS TO DATA OF THREE FAMILY-GROUP 

NAMES OF BUTTERFLIES ON THE OFFICIAL LIST 

(INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA). (Z.N.(S.) 2187. 

By C.F. Cowan {4 Thornfield Terrace, Grange-over Sands, 
Cumbria, LAll 7DR, England) 

By Direction 99, published 16th May, 1958, nine butterfly 
Family-Group names were placed on the Official List of Family- 
Group Names in Zoology with name numbers 225-233. 

2. Names 226, 230, and 232, respectively SATYRIDAE, 
DAN AID AE and NYMPHALIDAE, are correctly listed. 

3. Names 225, MORPHIDAE, 227, COLIADINAE and 
233, PAPILIONIDAE have already been the subjects of requests 
(Cases Z.N.(S.) 2201, 2186 and 2245 respectively). 

4. Meanwhile the following minor facts are brought to notice 
regarding the entries for the remaining three names: 

No. 228 'ARGYNNIDAE Duponchel, 1844, Cat. Meth p. 2'. 

This date and reference repeats Duponchel's earlier valid 

proposal of this name: 

ARGYNNIDAE Duponchel, [1835] (in Godart, J.B.) 

Hist. nat. Lep. Pap. France, Suppl. vol. l(livr. 23), pp. 

394, 395. 
No. 229 'APATURIDAE Boisduval, 1840. Gen. Ind. meth. Europ. 

Lep. etc' Correct, but the title was in Latin {Genera et 

Index methodicus Europaeorum Lepidopterorum) , and 

the accents should be deleted. 



No. 231 'LIMENITIDINAE Butler, 1869, Cat. diurn. Lep. 

Fabricius, p. 57.' As Sherborn, 1934 {Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 

(10) 13: 311) showed, the date of publication of this work 

(prefaced on 3 Dec. 1869) was [12 February 1870]. 

5. It is recommended that the Official List of Family-Group 

Names in Zoology be corrected in accordance with paragraph 4 

above. 




Readers of the Bulletin are reminded that the main regular source 
of income to finance the work of the Commission comes from sales 
of this periodical, and that this is insufficient to meet the needs of 
zoologists for the services provided by the Commission and to 
maintain the office at an efficient level. Help in the form of dona- 
tions and bequests will, therefore, be received with gratitude. 

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to 
express its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of 
the British Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the 
Commission. 



© 1981 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 
Printed in England by INPRINT OF LUTON (Designers & Printers) LTD. 



Volume 38, Part 4 ISSN 0007 -5167 

pp. i-iv, 229 — 318 T.P. . I-VIII 30 NovemBer 1981 




THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 

The Official Organ of 

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



LONDON 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

c/o British Museum (Natural History) 

Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD 

Price £10.00 

(All rights reserved) 



> 



0'' = 



-s- 



^- ,^ 



ts 



THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON V ^] 

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE .v* ^ ^\ 

A. The Officers of the Commission c^ j 

President: Dr. C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., llSDA-c/o U.S. 

National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.). 
Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, 

S-223 62, Lund, Sweden). 
Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell 

Road, London SW75BD). 
Assistant Secretary: Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), 

Cromwell Road, London SW7 5 BD). 



B. The Members of the Commission 

(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) 

Prof. T. HABE (Department of Marine Science, Tokai University, 1000 Orido, 

Shimizu City 414 Japan (20 February 1972) Marine Biology 
Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, 

Edinburgh EHl IJF, Scotland) (20 February 1972) (Councillor) Mollusca 
Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London 

SW75BD) (20 February 1972) (Assistant Secretary) Lepidoptera 
Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucumdn, Instituto Miguel Lillo, 

Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucumdn, Argentina) (20 February 1972) Neotropical 

Hymenoptera 
Prof. Enrico TORTONESE (Istituto Zooprofilattico, Lungo Bisagno Dalmazia 

45A, 16141, Genova, Italy) (30 September, 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata 
Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, 

Sweden) (30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology 
Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de 

Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) 

Echinoidea; Asteroidea 
Prof. E. BINDER (Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzerland) 

(30 September 1972) Mollusca 
Prof. Harold E. YOKES (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New 

Orleans, Louisiana 70118, U.S.A.) (30 September 1972) Mollusca 
Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Postbus 9517, 2300 

RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Crustacea 
Dr. G. BERNARDI (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 

75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Lepidoptera 
Prof. C. DUPUIS (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 

Paris, 75005, France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera 
Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI Instytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk, ul. 

Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975) Coleoptera 
Prof. H.E. WELCH (Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 

Manitoba, R3T2N2 Canada) (17 March 1976) Nematoda 
Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 

Hamburg 13, Germany) (29 September 1976) Arachnida, Myriapoda 



Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (College Fellow in Life Sciences, School of Applied Science, 

Canberra College of Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 

2616, Australia) (29 September 1976) (Councillor) Mammalia: Recent and 

Fossil 
Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USD A do U.S. 

National Museum, Washington, DC. 20560, U.S.A.) (29 September 1976) 

(President) Diptera 
Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) 

(29 September 1976) Reptilia; E D P Methods 
Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitatsgebiet 

Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) 11 December 1978) Palaeontology 
Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of 

Tromso, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsd, Norway) (27 December 1978) 

Parasitology 
Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN, (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 

B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology 
Dr. P.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 

20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Octocorallia; Systematics 
Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, 

U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics 
Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, 

London SW75BD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology 
Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of .Sciences, 

Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea 
Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN, (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of 

Turku. SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida 



INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

A. The Members of the Trust 

Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) 

Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) 

Dr. J.H. Callomon, F.R.I.C. 

Prof. Barry Cox 

Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. 

Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. 

Prof. J. Forest 

Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. 

Dr. R.H. Hedley 

Dr. L.B. Holthuis 

Prof. Dr. O. Kraus 

Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S. 

Dr. E.P.F. Rose.T.D. 

Dr. C.W. Sabrosky (ex officio) 

Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. 

Dr. C.A. Wright (Observer) 

B. The Officer of the Trust 
Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) 



CONTENTS 



Page 



Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: 

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229 

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain 

cases 229 

(c) List of new applications 229 

Special announcements 230 

Financial Report, 1980 and Accounts of the International Trust for 

Zoological Nomenclature 233 

Comments 

On the proposed suppression of Rafinesque, 1822, "On the turtles of the 

United States" (L.B. Holthuis) 236 

On the proposed conservation of Artemia Leach, 1819 (Crustacea, 

Branchiopoda) (L.B. Holthuis) 237 

On a request for a change in Article 40 ofthe Code (W.O. Cernohorsky) 237 

On the proposal that Chromis Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814 and generic 
names ending in -chromis be ruled to be masculine (W.I. Follett & 
L.J. Dempster) 284 

On the proposed conservation of the generic name Typus Seliards, 1909 

(Insecta, Protodonata) (D.L.F. Sealy) 286 

On the proposed conservation of Alpheus lottini Guerin, 1829 

(Crustacea, Decapoda) (L.B. Holthuis) 303 

Commission Report 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of Second 

Vote on proposals on Parataxa (The Secretary) 238 

Opinions 

Opinion 1188. Aphis pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841 (Insecta, 

Hemiptera) conserved 239 

Opinion 1189. CIRCINAE in Aves and Mollusca: removal of the 

homonymy 243 

Opinion 1190. Pterois zebra Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829 

(Pisces, Scorpaenidae) placed on the Official List 247 

Opinion 1191. Berytus consimilis Horvath, 1855 (Hemiptera, 

Berytinidae); lectotype designation confirmed 249 

Opinion 1192. Lecanium acuminatum Signoret, 1873 (Insecta, 

Homoptera, Coccidae): neotype designated 252 

Opinion 1193. Ceratophysella Borner, 1932 (Insecta, CoUembola) 

conserved 254 



opinion 1194. Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766 (Bryozoa): neotype 

designated 256 

Opinion 1195. Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Gastropoda): the type 

species is Pleurocems acutus Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824 259 

Opinion 1196. Beyrichia MCoy, 1846 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): 

designation of type species and of neotype for that species 266 

Opinion 1197. Cypraea piperita Gray, 1825, C. comptonii Gray, 1847, 

C. bicolor Gaskoin, 1849 and C. angustata Gmehn, 1791 

(Gastropoda): placed on the Official List 270 

Opinion 1198. Sminthopsis murina var. constricta Spencer, 1896 

(Mammalia, Marsupialia) suppressed 274 

Direction 109. Seven family-group names in Insecta, Heteroptera 

placed on Official List 276 

Direction 110. Ixodes Latreille, 1795 (Arachnida, Acarina): entry in 

Official List of generic names confirmed 280 

New and Revived Cases 

Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia, Lacertilia): proposed designation 

of a type species by use of the plenary powers (The Secretary) . . . 283 

Typus Sellards, 1909 (Insecta, Protodonata): proposed 
conservation under plenary powers (F.M. Carpenter & 
P. Whalley) 285 

Capsiis ater Jakovlev, 1889 and Lygaeus quadripunctatus Fabricius, 
1794 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Heteroptera): proposed nomenclatural 
variation (I.M. Kerzhner) 288 

Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Coleoptera, Byrrhidae): 

proposed conservation (M. Mroczkowski) 292 

Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia): proposals 

to clarify the type species of the genus (G.H. Brown) 294 

Alpheus lottini Guerin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed 

conservation (A. R. Banner &D.M. Banner) 297 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

Volume 38, part 4 (pp. 229-318), T.P., I-VIII 30 November, 1981 



NOTICES 

(a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal cir- 
cumstances the Commission may start to vote on applications pub- 
lished in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after 
the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to 
comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to 
send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the 
Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach 
the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. 

(b) Possible use of the plenary powers. The possible use by 
the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following 
applications published in the present part of the Bulletin (that 
marked with an asterisk involves the application of Articles 23a-b 
and 79b): 

(1) frem/fl^ Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia,Lacertilia), proposed 
designation of a type species by use of the plenary powers. 
Z.N.(S.) 1172. The Secretary. 

(2) Typus Sellards, 1909 (Insecta, Protodonata), proposed 
conservation under plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2359. F.M. 
Carpenter & P. Whalley. 

(3) Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 and Lygaeus quadripunctatus 
Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Heteroptera), pro- 
posed nomenclatural validation. Z.N.(S.) 2148. I.M. 
Kerzhner. 

*(4) Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Cole- 
optera, Byrrhidae), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 
2317. M. Mroczkowski. 

(5) Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia), 
proposals to clarify the type species of the genus. Z.N.(S.) 
1986. G.H. Brown. 

(6) Alpheus lottini Guerin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda), 
proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2370. A.R. & D.M. 
Banner. 

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applica- 
tions have been received since the publication of vol. 38(3) on 30 
July 1981 (those marked with an asterisk involve the application of 
Articles 23a-b and 79b.): 

(1) Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 (Diptera, EMPIDIDAE), 
proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2380. M. 
Chvala&K.G.V. Smith. 

(2) Proposal to regulate the names of taxa above the family 



230 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



group. Z.N.(S.) 2381. A. Rasnitsyn. 

(3) Leptobrachium parvum Boulenger, 1893 (Amphibia, 
Anura), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2382. A. 
Dubois. 

(4) Hyla reinwardtii Schlegel, 1840 (?) (Amphibia, Anura), 
proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2383. A. Dubois. 

(5) Nymphula Schrank, 1802 (Insecta, Lepidoptera), pro- 
posed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2384. D.S. 
Fletcher & I. W.B.Nye. 

(6) Paludestrina d'Orbigny, 1840 (MoUusca, Gastropoda), 
proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2385. N.J. Cazzaniga. 

(7) "Onomatophore", possible use of, in the Code. Z.N.(S.) 
2386. The Secretary. 

*(8) Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 (Rhizopoda, Amoebida), 

proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2387. F.C. Page. 
(9) Generic names, proposed standard procedure for deter- 
mining gender. Z.N.(S.) 2388. G.C. Steyskal. 
*(10) Myzus festucae Theobald, 1917 (Insecta, Aphidoidea), 
proposed conservation under the plenary powers. 
Z.N.(S.) 2389. H.L.G. Stroyan. 

(11) Guignotus Guignot, 1945 (Insecta, Coleoptera), pro- 
posed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2391. O. Bistrom. 

(12) Cythere oblonga Brady, 1866; C. pavonia Brady, 1866 
and C. crispata Brady, 1868 (Crustacea, Ostracoda), 
proposed validation of lectotypes. Z.N.(S.) 2392. J. 
Athersuch. 

(13) Atractocera latipes Meigen, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera, 
SIMULIIDAE), proposed neotype designation. 
Z.N.(S.) 2393. LA. Rubtsov. 

*(14) Simuiium austeni Edwards, 1915; 5. ferruginea Wahlberg, 
1844 (Insecta, Diptera), proposed conservation. Z.N. (S.) 
2394. I. A. Rubtsov. 

(15) Agromyza Fallen, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera), proposed 
designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2395. G.C. Steyskal 
and K.A. Spencer. 

(16) Napomyza Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera), proposed 
conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2396. G.C. Steyskal and K.A. 
Spencer. 

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS 

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 
We announce with great regret the death of Dr G.F. de 
Witte, and also the resignation of Dr N.E. Hickin, to whom we 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 231 



express our thanks for his many years of service on the Trust. 

We are pleased to announce the appointments to the Trust of 
Professor Barry Cox (King's College, University of London) and Dr 
E.P.F. Rose,T.D. (Bedford College, University of London) . 

SIZE AND PRICE OF BULLETIN 

The number of New Applications and Comments already in 
proof awaiting publication remains substantial and a number of 
Opinions are also ready for printing. We shall therefore try to main- 
tain the Bulletin at its present size, as enlarged by 12 pages for each 
of the four parts of Volume 38 (1981), throughout 1982. Despite 
ever rising costs, the Trust is glad to announce that the price of Vol- 
ume 39, for 1982, will be held at the current 1981 price of £40 per 
volume of four parts. 

PUBLICITY FOR THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION 

On 23 October, 1981 the Secretary of the Commission, Mr 

R.V. Melville, addressed the Cambridge College of Arts and 

Technology on the work of the Commission. His theme was 

"Zoological Nomenclature: its importance to the non-taxonomist". 

FINANCIAL SUPPORT 
The Finance Report for 1980 published in this present issue of 
the Bulletin (page 233) shows that the Trust desperately needs addi- 
tional funds if the work of the Commission is to continue on even its 
present scale. We renew our appeal (Bulletin, volume 38. part 3, 
page 155) to the generosity of all readers and indeed of all zoologists 
and others who stand to benefit from the Commission's work. 

In the meantime, we acknowledge with grateful thanks the 
following donations, received since the publication of volume 38, 
part 3 of the Bulletin on 30 July, 1981: 

The Charitable Trust Committee of the British National Oil 
Corporation; Professor CD. Michener (University of 
Kansas, U.S.A.); Professor S.J. Gould (Museum of Com- 
parative Zoology, Harvard, U.S.A.); Dr D.F. Waterhouse 
(CSIRO, Department of Entomology, Canberra, Austraha). 

NOMINATIONS TO FILL COMMISSIONER VACANCIES 
In addition to the announcement made in the Bulletin, \olume 
38, part 3, page 154, a notice was sent through the good offices of the 
Secretariat of the International Union of Biological Sciences to all 
the national adhering bodies of the I.U.B.S. about the vacancies on 
the Commission and inviting nominations to fill them. We have so 
far received nine nominations. 



232 Bull. zool. Norn. , vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



XXI GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
UNION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES: 22-28 AUGUST, 1982 
Readers of the Bulletin know of the forthcoming General As- 
sembly of the I . U . B . S . at Ottawa in 1982 . The Section on Zoological 
Nomenclature of the Division of Zoology of I.U.B.S. will welcome 
the participation of local zoologists interested in nomenclature. We 
shall ask the local organizers of the Assembly to notify their 
colleagues of this and to invite them to apply to Dr Harold Cogger, 
Austrahan Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W., Australia (Secretary of 
the Division of Zoology) for recognition as members of the Section. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

4 November 1981 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 233 



FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 1980 

The sales of the International Code, the Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature, Opinions and Official Lists amounted to £10,447 
during 1980 (£8,924 in 1979). The printing costs of the Bulletin and 
distribution of the publications were £4,002 (£4,422) and the 
supporting services and administration £8,634 (£10,404). 

As the zoologist appointed last year to assist part-time was not 
employed after February 1980 through lack of funds, expenditure 
on the salaries was less in 1980. However, towards the end of 1980, 
the work increased generally, especially that on raising money for 
the Trust. As a result it was necessary to engage a part-time 
employee to help with the production of the Bulletin which is the 
visible link between the Commission and zoologists all over the 
world and, as such, plays a vital role in the life of the Commission. 

The working deficit for the year was £2,222 (£5,937) covered 
by Bank deposit interest of £1,555 (£673) and donations from 
member countries of the International Union of Biological Sciences 
amounting to £1,330 (£2,334). Grants from H.M. Government 
made by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (U.K.) via 
the Royal Society amounted to £5,000 and from the International 
Union of Biological Sciences, £4,281. 

This year ended with a surplus of £2,942 (£2,070) giving 
revenue reserves of £10,767 (£7,825). Provision for the publication 
of the 3rd edition of the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature was made by the setting up of a special account 
containing a specific donation of £5,000 from a member of the Trust 
and £7,000 transferred from the revenue reserve. 

It should be noted that the annual grant from the U.K. 
Government through the Royal Society will come to an end in 1981 
and that from lUBS may cease in 1982. 

Cost free accommodation for the Trust's and the 
Commission's offices and the services of the members of the 
Secretariat, which are remunerated at nominal rates all help the 
Trust at this crucial time to keep the work of the Commission going. 
However, it cannot be stressed too strongly that the Commission's 
work can no longer be funded in this unrealistic way. A target of at 
least £50,000 a year has been set to finance the Commission's work. 
To enable it to develop its services more fully would require an 
additional £15,000 a year. 

The appended accounts and balance sheet were adopted at the 
Annual General Meeting of the Trust held on 2nd June, 1981. 

F.G.W. JONES 

Managing Director and Secretary, 

International Trust for Zoological 

22 July, 1981 Nomenclature. 



234 



Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



O OS 
O O 

00 IT) 



o J-^ 

u -a 



C/5 

H 
U 

CO 
Q J 



til 7^ 



o 




OS 




rn 





CO 

0^ e 

E 2 
CO <*- 
CO <u 

Z c 

U 



u 
2 <^ 

11 

« c 

4> CO 

H.S 
«■§ 
•£ « 
o ^ 

■^ S 

nj PQ 

i| 

§1 



(/5 



c > 



5 o ^ 

«-J (U O 

p CO CO 

u 



lO 00 

o m 


m Q 
^ O 




00 OS 


1^ O 


so 

t-; 


r-' oi 


o'tN 


C3 



9 W E 

Z > « 

;_} 0^ u 

^ WQ o 

D '^ t^ S 

m U ;2 OS 

H ^ "^ T! 

< Uj 1? ^ 

J D a <« 

^Z c = 

S W J2 ci. 

S > 4S = 

(J Qi 
< 



o 
Z 

z 
o 

CO 

> 

o 
a: 

u 
it 
u 

UJ 



3^ 

ob 3 

o •*- 

o ■£ 
N E 
o2 

o^ 
u 3 

c a 
.2o 
cs o 

^1 

o <^ 



m o 
w 

y U « 



C O > 

U OX) u 

1) c " 

XJ -3 « 



j= j: ^ 



_o o « 

3 4i '=« 

3 E " 



c « 
^.2 3 

^ ■- cs 

1) lU c 

H HZ 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 235 



(^ 00 >n o 
r~ lo -^ 

(N 00 m 



0\ rf 

o lo 

vO in 



o 

< 

y 

03 
D 

a. 
u. 
O 
U 
J 
< 



-S-5) 
o ^ 

y§ 

5 •*- <" 
•2 o ^ J 

I- w c '5 

<" = -5 i*: 
■" 3 0,5: 

^asOO 



r^ ro o •^ 
rn in 



Q CQ 



"* IT) CO 

<N r^ r-~ 

Ov r^ v^ 



(N O 

•^ O 

0\ o 



iri 00 O 

r-l rt O 

«N c<^ -H 



on 
UJ 

Z 

Si 

z 3 

O = 

5^ 

H « _ >„ 

(/5 7 o =" 

S c = 

Z "^ 3 <" 

< t o 



w 



I« I« 



'i: O 



2 C/D O < 



-o g 

00. a 
.ES 

.EcS 



O OS in 
OS r'l r- 

00 -^ 



00 


:2 s 




ui 










ra 3 




a: -o 


^ a 




;^ se 


S),5 




< B 


^ 1/5 




CtJ 15 


C OQ 
3 C 
-B 




^.S 








u 




CiS 


2.8 







1^ 




s 


a-o 






X. c 






C/5 W « 






ied to 

ITOR 

e and 
,1980 
980. 






lR carr 

AUD 

Incom 
ember 
48tol 










: THE YEA 
HEET 

TOP THE 

d annexed 
le 31st Dec 
ies Acts, 19 


X 




Q 

z 

u 




Pw ^S g 


^ 




SURPLUS F 
BALANC 

REP 

Balance Shee 
ny's affairs as 
with the Com] 


c 





•0 

c 











a: 




bove 
)mpa 
mply 








«/j 


13 







•" -c c 


r. 






.2 «i 







<+< 


.E w « 


i55 




°^ « 


u 


00 


3 !>£ 


E 


2 


°-5 C 


1— > 


, 


c ^ 


4_l 


<u 


~ -o 


03 


c 
3 






^^ 


q 


.5 




> <u 


m' 


5^ 



236 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF RAFINESQUE, 
1822, "ON THE TURTLES OF THE UNITED STATES". 

Z.N. (S.) 2289 
(see vol. 37, pp. 53-56) 

(i) by L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, 
Leiden, Netherlands) 

So far as I can see, only Trionyx nasica (of which an objective character, viz., 
'the weight of fifty pounds' is given) and Monoclida kentukensis (of which a good 
description is provided) are available names. The other ten names are nomina 
nuda, as, according to Article 16b(i), a vernacular name does not constitute an 
indication. It will thus be sufficient to suppress only the name Trionyx nasica. The 
generic name Monoclida is a junior synonym of Terrapene Merrem, 1820, and does 
not do any harm, and likewise the specific name kentukensis is a junior synonym of 
Carolina Linnaeus, 1758. 

(ii) reply by H.M. Smith 

The Code as at present constituted, Art. 16b(i), does indeed eliminate a 
vernacular name as an indication, in the sense of Art. 12. The same provision is 
maintained in the proposed revision of the Code. Hence, only Monoclida, M. 
kentukensis and Trionyx nasica, of the names used in Rafinesque's work, can be 
regarded as occupied as of that work since all others were accompanied only by 
vernacular names. Furthermore, of those three names, only T. nasica is a senior 
synonym of a currently accepted name, T. spiniferus (Le Sueur, 1827); of the other 
two, Monoclida is a synonym of Terrapene Merrem, 1820, and M. kentukensis is a 
synonym of T. Carolina Carolina Linnaeus, 1758) and neither is likely to cause 
confusion. Therefore suppression only of T. nasica would suffice to eliminate the 
actual nomenclatural confusion that would result from application of the Law of 
Priority to Rafinesque's 1822 work. 

The view has long been expounded by one of us (H.M.S.), however, that 
when either the scientific or the vernacular name provides descriptive information 
(i.e. not simply locality, geological horizon, host, specimen number or label, or 
synonymic allocation as cited in Art. 16b), the requirement for an "indication' in the 
sense of Art. 12 is met. 

Should that view ever be adopted in the Code, it would be useful for 
Rafinesque's entire work of 1822, not simply the name T. nasica, to have been 
suppressed. Otherwise the latter option would be the simplest to effect 
nomenclatural stability. 

(iii) by A.F. Stimson {British Museum, Natural History) 
It is clear that Trionyx nasica should be suppressed, either by suppressing that 
name alone, or by suppressing the whole of Rafinesque's 1822 paper. 

Which course is taken must depend on whether or not the other names are 
considered nomina nuda. I agree with Hobart Smith that such a term as 'Dwarf soft- 
shelled turtle', while evidently a vernacular, is also sufficiently descriptive to 
identify the species and may be regarded as a brief description. 

Art. 12 requires that to be available a name must be accompanied by a 
description, definition or indication. Art. 16b(i) states that a vernacular name does 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 237 



not constitute an indication. Nowhere does it say that a vernacular name cannot 
constitute a description. Thus I support the original proposal to suppress 
Rafinesque's 1822 work. 



COMMENT ON PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF ARTEMIA LEACH, 

1819 

(CRUSTACEA, BRANCHIOPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1984 

see vol. 37: 223-227 

By L.B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, 
Leiden, Netherlands) 

I will gladly support Dr Lochhead's application to conserve the generic name 
Artemia Leach, 1819. There are, however, two minor points that I want to make. 

1. Mathews (1911, Novitates Zoologicae, vol. 18(1), p. 18) noted that the 
four volumes of the first edition of Cuvier's Regne Animal were published 7 
December 1816, not in 1817 as mentioned on the title page. The date oi Artemisia 
Latreille is thus 1816 (in Cuvier, Regne Anim. (ed. 1), vol. 3, p. 68). 

2. The first type designation for the genus Artemia Leach that I know of is 
by Lucas (1840, Histoire naturelle des Crustaces, des Arachnides etdes Myriapodes, 
p. 289), where under Artemia salina the author remarked: "L'espece qui a servi de 

type a ce genre est un petit Crustace " The same remark can be found on the 

same page in the 1842 and 1851 issues of the work. 

[Editor's note. Dr Lochhead has written to say he is grateful for these comments: 
the corrections will be taken into account when the voting paper is issued.] 



COMMENT ON A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ARTICLE 40 OF THE 
CODE. Z.N.(S.)2250 

By Walter O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Private Bag, 
Auckland, 1., New Zealand) 

I fully support Dr. Pettibone's application {Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, p. 7) for 
a change in Article 40 of the Code. This article does not serve any useful purpose 
other than to cloud the issue and lose sight of the true relationship and meaning of 
the family-group name in cases where the type genus has disappeared in synonymy. 

Article 40 is not only a source of confusion in Polychaeta but is also 
irritatingly present in Mollusca. An example is the current family-group name 
CYLINDROMITRINAE Cossmann, 1899, which is protected under Article 40 
and must be given chronological priority over PTERYGIINAE Kuroda, 1934, 
even though its type genus Cylindromitra Fischer, 1884, has long ago disappeared 
in the synonymy of Pterygia Roding, 1798. 

Article 40 contributes very little to nomenclatural stability and should be 
either emended or even deleted from the Code. 



238 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL 

NOMENCLATURE 

RESULT OF SECOND VOTE ON PROPOSALS ON 

PARATAXA. Z.N.(S.)1973 

By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature 

As already reported in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 30-48, the 
proposals concerning names for ichnotaxa and parataxa were sent 
for voting in V. P. (80)18. That voting paper contained four points, of 
which Point 4 proposed that names given to parataxa should not 
compete with names given to nominal taxa in the Animal Kingdom. 
That proposal received an affirmative majority smaller than a two- 
thirds majority. Accordingly, under Bylaw 25, it was sent for a 
second vote in V. P. (80)39 on 24 November 1980. At the close of the 
voting period on 24 February 1981, the state of the voting was as 
follows: 

Affirmative Votes — eleven (11) received in the following 
order: Melville, Willink, Mroczkowski, Heppell, Habe, Corliss, 
Welch, Tortonese, Brinck, Binder, Bernardi 

Negative Votes — five (5) received in the following order: 
Holthuis, Trjapitzin, Alvarado, Starobogatov and Nye 

Hahn, Dupuis, Lehtinen, Sabrosky and Bayer abstained. No 
vote was returned by Kraus. Halvorsen and Vokes were on leave of 
absence. 

The result of the vote on V. P. (80)39 is that the proposal again 
received a majority less than a two-thirds majority. Under Bylaw 36, 
the proposal is therefore rejected. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 239 

OPINION 1 1S8 

^P///5Py7?/BOYERDEFONSCOL6MBE, 1841 (INSECTA- 
HEMIPTERA) CONSERVED ^'^^^^T^^- 

PVri Valk)^7sn9~f ^^ m" "If 'i*"^ Pj^"^^y P°^er^' the specific name 

nomenclature therein. pnncipies ot bmommal 

publisSd^fn^ specificname pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841 as 

ru^ (1) above (Name Number 1078); > Powers m 

(b) the foUowmg names pubHshed in combination with 

the generic name Aphis by Kittel 1827- 

aquilegiae nigra (Name Number 1079) ' 

aquilegiae flava (Name Number 1080) 

sonchi pruinosa (Name Number 1081) 

5o«c/2^ viridifurcata (Name Number 1082) 

nyosciami (Name Number 1083) 

P>'n (Name Number 1084) 

5o/««/ (Name Number 1085) 

piperis (Name Number 1086) 

epilobii (Name Number 1087) 

■varp/ (Name Number 1088) 

morae (Name Number 1089) 

lavaterae (Name Number 1090) 
('^^ ^u \^^^ ^'"^'' (Name Number 1091) 
Officiil^n'dt of R^S^J:'^^^^^^^^^^ P»-^d on the 



240 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2062 

An application for the conservation of Aphis pyri Boyer de 
Fonscolombe, 1841, was first received from Dr V.F. Eastop (British 
Museum (Natural History), London) on 12 March 1974. It was sent 
to the printer on 5 April 1974 and published on 20 September 1974 in 
Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 164-166. Public notice of the possible 
use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of 
the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to seven 
entomological serials. 

The application was supported by Dr. Louise M. Russell {U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland 20705, USA) and 
by Dr. Hille Ris Lambers (Bladluisonderzoek TNO, Bennekom, 
Netherlands), who pointed out that he had rejected Kittel's names in 
1939 (Temminckia, vol. 4, p. 2), as also did Doncaster in 1961 
(Francis Walker's Aphids, London) because Kittel was not 
consistently binominal. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 27 September 1978 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (78)23 
for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31 , pp. 
165-166. At the close of the voting period on 27 December 1978, the 
state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the 
following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Eisenmann, Alvarado, 
Mroczkowski, Vokes, Willink, Habe, Tortonese, Binder, Corliss, 
Welch, Heppell, Ride, Bayer, Cogger, Kraus, Nye, Sabrosky, 
Dupuis, Bernardi 

Negative Votes — none (0) 

A late affirmative vote was returned by Starobogatov. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Mroczkowski: 'There is no need to place Kittel's 1827 names 
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names if the 
whole work of Kittel, 1827, is placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Works.' 

Heppell: T believe proposal 4b is unnecessary if proposals 2 
and 5 are accepted. While I accept that it is desirable in the 
application to indicate which names are involved when the 
suppression of a work is asked for, I think it clutters the Official 
Index quite unnecessarily to add such included names individually.' 

Sabrosky: 'Re Kittel (1827), the mere fact that "the author did 
not consistently use binominals" would not necessarily make the 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 241 



work unavailable: the apparent polynominals might be acceptable 
compounds (Article 26a). The application does not make their 
derivation clear. Moreover, one might argue that Kittel's names 1 
through 4, and no. 13, were equivalent to saying "var. nigra'\ "var. 
flava\ etc., as has apparently been done in considering Linnaeus 
(1758) to be consistendy binominal! However, most important, the 
Kittel names were considered by the Commission in Opinion 50 
(published 1912), and the Commission then viewed the polynominal 
specific names as unavailable, although the Summary mentioned 
only Aphis aquilegiaeflava, the subject of the application submitted 
to it. To confirm this history, I vote for the proposals regarding 
Kittel's work, but feel obliged to comment that an application which 
concerns an entire work should more adequately examine the work 
itself and justify the case.' 

[Note by the Secretary: In view of Dr. Sabrosky's comment, I 
examined Kittel's work and found that that author had Usted the 
Latin and French names in two columns, e.g.: 
p. 148 Aphis aquilegiae nigra Puceron noir de I'ancolie 

Aphis aquilegiae flava Puceron jaune de I'ancolie 
p. 149 Aphis sonchi pruinosa Puceron a duvet du laiteron 

Aphis sonchi 

viridifurca [sic] Puceron vert-brun du laiteron 

p. 154 Aphis salicis minor Petit puceron du saule 
This shows conclusively that the names in question are acceptable 
neither as trinominals nor as compound names. R. V.M.] 



ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for names placed on 
an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the 
present Opinion: 
pyri, Aphis, Vallot, 1802, Concordance systematique... a Vouvrage 

de Reaumur intitule: Memoires pour servir a Vhistoire des 

Insectes (Paris), p. 94 
pyri, Aphis, Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841, Ann. Soc. entomol. 

France, vol. 10, pp. 189-190 
The thirteen names listed in paragraph 4b of the ruling: Kittel, 1827, 

Mem. Soc. linn. Paris, vol. 5, pp. 133-155. 

The following is the title of the work placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology by the present 
ruling: Kittel, M.B., 1827, Sur les pucerons, suivi de la description 
de quelques especes nouvelles, Mem. Soc. linn. Paris, vol. 5 (1826), 
pp. 133-155. 



242 Bull. zool. Norn. , vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V. P. (78)23 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision 
so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 
No. 1188. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
20 February 1981 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 243 



OPINION 1189 

CIRCINAE IN AVES AND MOLLUSCA: REMOVAL OF 

THE HOMONYMY 

RULING. — (1) The requests to use the plenary powers to 
vary the stem, for the purposes of Article 29, of either the generic 
name Circus Lacepede, 1799 (Aves), or (b) the generic name Circe 
Schumacher, 1817 (Mollusca) are hereby refused. 

(2) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the 
generic name Circus was first made available by Lacepede, 1799, 
regardless of any prior publication by Bechstein. 

(3) The following generic names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) Circus Lacepede, 1799 (gender: masculine), type 
species, by subsequent designation by Lesson, 1828, 
Falco aeruginosus Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 
2131); 

(b) Circe Schumacher, 1817 (gender: feminine), type 
species, by monotypy, Circe violacea Schumacher, 
1817 (Name Number 2132); 

(c) Gafrarium Roding, 1798 (gender: neuter), type 
species, by subsequent designation by Dall, 1902, 
Venus pectinata Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 
2133). 

(4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) aeruginosus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the 
binomen Falco aeruginosus (specific name of type 
species of Circus Lacepede, 1799) (Name Number 
2759); 

(b) scripta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen 
Venus scripta (the valid name, at the time of this 
ruling, for the type species of Circe Schumacher, 
1817) (Name Number 2760); 

(c) pectinata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the 
binomen Venus pectinata (specific name of type 
species of Gafrarium Roding, 1798) (Name Number 
2761) 

(5) The following family-group names are hereby placed on 
the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name 
Numbers specified: 

(a) CIRCINAE Sundevall, 1836 (Aves), type genus 
Circus Lacepede, 1799 (Name Number 515); 



244 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



(b) GAFRARIINAE Korobkov, 1954 (Mollusca), type 

genus Gafrarium Schumacher, 1817 (Name Number 

516). 

(6) The following family-group name is hereby placed on the 

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 

Zoology with the Name Number specified: CIRCINAE Dall, 1895 

(Name Number 486). 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S)2112 

An application designed to remove the homonymy between 
the subfamily names CIRCINAE in Aves and CIRCINAE in 
Mollusca was first received from Dr. Barry Roth {California 
Academy of Sciences) on 3 February 1975. After an exchange of 
correspondence it was sent to the printer on 14 October 1975 and 
published on 30 January 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 270- 
273. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the 
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
statutory serials, five general serials, ten ornithological and four 
malacological serials. 

Comments by Dr. E. Eisenmann, Mr. R.K. Brooke (to whom 
Dr. Roth replied) and Mr. D. Heppell were published in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 33, pp. 143-145. Whereas Dr. Roth, in his original 
application, and Mr. Brooke proposed that the stem of one or other 
of the generic names involved be changed, Mr. Heppell proposed 
that the Law of Homonymy be allowed to operate and that the 
subfamily name GAFRARIINAE Korobkov, 1954 (generally 
considered a junior synonym of CIRCINAE Dall, 1895) be adopted 
as a replacement name. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month rule on Voting Paper 
V.P. (80)25, either (A) for changing CIRCINAE (Mollusca) to 
CIRCEINAE, or (B) for changing CIRCINAE (Aves) to 
CIRCOINAE, or (C) for accepting GAFRARIINAE in place of 
CIRCINAE (Mollusca). It was pointed out that choices A and B 
would both require the use of the plenary powers, but that choice C 
would not . At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1980 the 
state of the voting was as follows: 

Choice A — five (5): Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Hahn, Habe, 
Nye 

Choice B — three (3): WiUink, Corliss, Ride 

Choice C — fourteen (14): Melville, Starobogatov, 
Trjapitzin, Lehtinen, Brinck, Tortonese, Dupuis, Welch, 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 245 



Alvarado, Cogger, Sabrosky, Heppell, Bayer, Halvorsen 

Yokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by 
Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Holthuis: To justify my voting on this case I want to make the 
following remarks: 

'(1) (concerning Alternative B). The change from 
CIRCINAE (for Circe) to CIRCEINAE is less drastic and shows 
the relation to the type genus better than does that of CIRCINAE 
(for Circus) to CIRCOINAE. 

'(2) (concerning Alternative B). The fact that some authors at 
present synonymise CIRCINAE (for Circus) with 
ACCIPITRINAE does not mean that this will always be so: usually 
a period in which ''lumping" is fashionable will be followed by one in 
which the trend will be to splitting. It is almost arrogant to believe 
that we have now achieved the definitive taxonomy of birds. 

'(3) (concerning Alternative C). CIRCINAE Dall, 1895 (for 
Circe) actually is only an accidental homonym of CIRCINAE 
Sundevall, 1836, caused, not by nomenclature, but by the rules of 
grammar. As long as Circe is an available name , we cannot reject the 
family-group name based on it (if Circe were the only genus in a 
monotypical family, the name of the family would have to be based 
on the name Circe). The only alternative is to change its spelling or 
that of its homonym. The name CIRC(E)INAE Dall, 1895, in 
whatever spelling, is a senior synonym of GAFRARIINAE 
Korobkov, 1954, and the latter name cannot be used except by 
zoologists who think that Circe and Gafrarium belong to two distinct 
family-group taxa.' 

Hahn: T vote for Alternative A. As far as I can see, and in 
contrast to the opinion of Mr. Brooke, the avian family-group name 
CIRCINAE is still in use. I have found it in Grzimek's Tierleben, 
vol. 7, p. 502, 1970, as well as in the German edition of O.L. 
Austin's Die Vogel der Welt, p. 81, 1963.' 

Ride: 'CIRCINAE is well known in Mollusca and is in current 
use. I see no advantage to users of the molluscan literature in 
dispensing with it merely to avoid having to use the plenary powers. 
Some amendments should be made to the proposal to cover 
Eisenmann's point on Bechstein, and I ask for these to be taken care 
of by the Secretary.' 

Bayer: 'As a modern revision treats Circe Schumacher, 1817, 
as a synonym of Gafrarium Roding, 1798, it would seem preferable 
to let the Law of Homonymy apply and use GAFRARIINAE for 
the molluscan subfamily, thus avoiding a case in which a family- 
group name is based on a generic name not in use.' 



246 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for names placed on 
Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present 
Opinion: 

aeruginosas, Falco, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, p. 91 
Circe Schumacher, 1817, Essai vers test., pp. 50, 152 
CIRCINAE Sundevall, 1836, K. Vetenskaps-Akad. Handl. for 

1835, p. 113 
CIRCINAE Dall, 1895, Trans. Wagner free Inst. Sci. 

Philadelphia, vol. 3, p. 552 
Circus Lacepede, 1799, Tableau des Oiseaux, p. 4 
GAFRARIINAE Korobkov, 1954, Spravochnik i metodicheskoe 

rukovodstvo po Tretichnim Mollyuskam , p. 166 
Gafrarium Roding, 1798, Museum Boltenianum, p. 176 
pectinata, Venus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, p. 689 
scripta, Venus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, p. 689 

The following are the original references to designations of 
type species accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of 
Falco aeruginosus as type species of Circus Lacepede, 1799, by 
Lesson, 1828, Man. Ornithol., vol. 1, p. 105; of Venus pectinata 
Linnaeus, 1758, as type species of Circe Schumacher, 1817, by Dall, 
W.H., 1895, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 26, p. 350. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (1980)25 
were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting 
paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the 
decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1189. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
10 March 1981 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 247 



OPINION 1190 

PTEROIS ZEBRA CUVIER in CUVIER & VALENCIENNES, 

1829 (PISCES, SCORPAENIDAE) PLACED ON THE 

OFFICIAL LIST 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name 
zebra Quoy & Gaimard, 1825, as published in the binomen Pterois 
zebra, and all uses of that name prior to its publication by Cuvier in 
Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829, is hereby suppressed for the purposes 
of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. 

(2) The specific name zebra Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 
1829, as published in the binomen Pterois zebra, is hereby placed on 
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name 
Number 2762. 

(3) The specific name zebra Quoy & Gaimard, 1825, as 
published in the binomen Pterois zebra, and as suppressed under the 
plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
1092. 



HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2113 

An application for the conservation of the name Pterois zebra 
Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829, was first received from Dr. 
0ystein Fr0iland {University of Bergen, Norway) on 20 January 
1975. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the printer 
on 16 May 1975 and published on 30 January 1976 in Bull. zool. 
Norn. vol. 32, pp. 250-251. Public notice of the possible use of the 
plenary powers in the case was sent to the statutory serials and to 
five general and one ichthyological serial. No comments were 
received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule for or against the 
proposals published in Bull. zool. Norn. vol. 32, p. 251. At the close 
of the voting period on 5 December 1980, the state of the voting was 
as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the 
following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, 
Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Lehtinen, Hahn, Brinck, Tortonese, 
Corliss, Dupuis, Habe, Ride, Welch, Alvarado, Cogger, Sabrosky, 
Heppell, Bayer, Halvorsen, Nye 



248 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



Negative Votes — none (0) 

Yokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by 
Bernard!, Binder and Kraus. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their votes: 

Holthuis: 'To paragraph 9(1) of the application should be 
added, between ''zebra'"' and "for the purposes", "and all uses of this 
name before the publication of Pterois zebra by Cuvier in Cuvier «fe 
Valenciennes, 1829." '[This has been taken into account in drafting 
the present ruling. R.V.M.] 

Dupuis: 'Je vote "pour" uniquement dans I'interet de la 
stabilite de la nomenclature, tant est une reference generale celle a 
Cuvier & Valenciennes, mais je regrette, en termes d'ethique, 
d'avoir a attribuer a ces auteurs un nom qu'ils ont pille chez 
d'autres.' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references to the names placed 
on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the 
present Opinion: 
zebra, Pterois, Quoy & Gaimard, 1825, Voyage autour du monde . . . 

sur les corvettes de S. M. "/' Uranie" et ''la Physicienne" pendant 

les annees 1817-1820, Zoologie vol. 4, p. 329 
zebra, Pterois, Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829, Histoire 

naturelle des poissons, vol. 4, p. 269. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V. P. (80)26 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision 
so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 
No. 1190. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
13 March 1981 



Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 249 



OPINION 1191 

BERYTUS CONSIMILIS HORVATH, 1855 

(HEMIPTERA, BERYTINIDAE): 

LECTOTYPE DESIGNATION CONFIRMED 

RULING.— (1) The neotype designated by E. Wagner, 1966, 
for the nominal species Berytus consimilis Horvath, 1855, is hereby 
set aside. 

(2) The lectotype designated by Pericart, 1976, for the above 
nominal species is hereby confirmed. 

(3) The specific name consimilis Horvath, 1855, as published 
in the binomen Berytus consimilis, and as defined by reference to 
the lectotype designated by Pericart, 1976, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
2763. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2118 

An application for the replacement of the neotype 
designated for Berytus consimilis Horvath, 1855 by Wagner, 1966 by 
a lectotype was first received from Monsieur J. Pericart {45 
Montereau, France) on 7 April 1975. It was sent to the printer on 16 
May 1975 and published on 30 January 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 
32, pp. 255-256. No use of the plenary powers was involved. No 
comment was received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)27 for or against the proposals published in Bull. zool. Nom. 
vol. 32, p. 256. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1980 
the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, 
Trjapitzin, Hahn, Brinck, Tortonese, Corliss, Dupuis, Habe, 
Welch, Alvarado, Cogger, Sabrosky, Heppell, Bayer, Halvorsen, 
Nye 

Negative Vote: Lehtinen 

Vokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by 
Bernardi, Binder and Kraus. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Lehtinen: 'In Hemipteran species, the informative value of 
male characters is generally much higher than that of female 



250 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



characters. As the neotype comes from the same geographic region 
as the series of syntypes, there are no reasons to suppose that 
possible patterns of geographic variation of this species could later 
cause confusion. A topotypic neotype stated to be conspecific with 
the syntypes by the applicant cannot threaten nomenclatural 
stability.' 

Ride: 'I vote against the proposal because it seems wiser to 
establish the taxonomy of the genus on Wagner's revision which, as 
the applicant has said, is based upon modern taxonomic criteria; and 
the neotype chosen by Wagner is undoubtedly conformable with the 
taxonomic concept established there. However, I vote on the 
assumption that the male genitalia are diagnostic of the genus {sensu 
Wagner) and that Wagner, in establishing the neotype, did so in 
conformity with Article 75a-c. I ask the Secretary to confirm these 
aspects. If Wagner did not fulfil the requirements of Article 75a-c, 
the Council should decide whether to seek action to validate the 
neotype under the plenary powers. If the male genitalia are not 
diagnostic and the female characters are, I ask for my vote to be 
disregarded.' 

[Note by the Secretary: as requested by Dr. Ride, I examined 
Wagner's neotype designation. It was designated (a) in a revisory 
work in which the identities of closely similar species were studied, 
(b) not for its own sake, or as a matter of curatorial routine, or for a 
species whose name is not in general use, and (c) in a manner that 
satisfies the requirements of Article 75c. The neotype cannot, 
therefore, be invalidated on that score. I then consulted Dr. W.R. 
Dolling (Natural History Museum, London) on the question of 
which sex was the more diagnostic and he told me that the species 
could be recognised equally well from either sex. Under those 
circumstances, I decided to disregard Dr. Ride's vote. R.V.M.] 

Sabrosky: 'In spite of the fact that the proposed lectotype 
would not be in the museum of the original series, I prefer that 
solution to help deter the unnecessary multiplication of neotypes 
when they are not really necessary.' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following is the original reference for a name placed on an 
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
consimilis, Berytus, Horvath, 1855, Rev. Entomol. vol. 4, 

pp. 320-324. 

The following is the original reference to a lectotype 
designation confirmed by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
for Berytus consimilis Horvath, 1855 by Pericart, 1976, Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 32, pp. 255-256. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 251 



CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V. P. (80)27 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has 
been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the 
decision of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1191. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
13 March 1981 



252 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



OPINION 1192 

LECANIUM ACUMINATUM SlG^OK^i:, 1873 (INSECTA, 

HOMOPTERA, COCCIDAE): NEOTYPE DESIGNATED 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, the neotype 
proposed by Ben-Dov, 1976, for the nominal species Lecaniwn 
acuminatum Signoret, 1873, is hereby confirmed. 

(2) The generic name Kilifia de Lotto, 1965 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by original designation, Lecanium 
acuminatum Signoret, 1873, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2134. 

(3) The specific name acuminatum Signoret, 1873, as 
published in the binomen Lecanium acuminatum, and as defined by 
reference to the neotype confirmed under the plenary powers in (1) 
above (specific name of type species of Kilifia de Lotto, 1965) is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with 
the Name Number 2764. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2119 

An enquiry as to the best procedure to be followed in securing 
the name Lecanium acuminatum Signoret, 1873, in its accepted 
sense was first received from Dr. Y. Ben-Dov (then of Plant 
Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, R.S.A.) on 19 March 1975. 
An application was then prepared and sent to the printer on 16 May 
1975; it was published on 30 January 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 
32, pp. 257-260. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well 
as to the statutory serials, to five general and seven entomological 
serials. The application was supported by Dr. Douglass R. Miller, 
Dr. Louise M. Russell and Dr. S. Nakahara {USDA, Beltsville, 
Maryland, U.S.A.). No adverse comment was received. Dr. 
Holthuis observed that Lecanium acuminatum Signoret, 1873, was 
the type species of Kilifia de Lotto, 1965, by original designation, so 
that the applicant's request for its designation as such under the 
plenary powers was not required. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)28 for or against the proposals published in Bull. zool. Nom. 
vol. 32, pp. 259-260. At the close of the voting period on 5 
December 1980, the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the 



Bull zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 253 

following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Brinck 
H?h2 ?!?''' JPfPj^^'l'. Lehtinen, Hahn, Tortonese, Corliss,' 

HalvoVse^n'N'ye^tye'r ^^^'"'°' ^°^^^^' '^''^^^^^' "^P^^"' 

Negative Vote — Dupuis 

Yokes was on leave of absence. No votes were returned bv 
bernardi. Binder and Kraus. ^ 

Professor Dupuis commented 'Neotype = faux legal' 

Dr. Sabrosky commented 'Re the Holthuis comment the 
author no doubt wished to be sure that the designation of 
acuminatum was in the sense of the neotype and not oi acuminatum 
bignoret as a synonym of hesperidum\ 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

ofr .'^he following are the original references for names placed on 
Utticial Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion- 
acuminatum Lecanium, Signoret, 1873, Ann. Soc. entomol. France 

(5) vol. 3, p. 397, pi. 11, fig. 1 
Kilifiadc Lotto, 1965, Bull. Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. (Entomol.), vol 

16, p. 206. ^ 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)28 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision 
so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on 
Zoolog^ical Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 

R.V. MELVILLE 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
16 March 1981 



254 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



OPINION 1193 

CERATOPHYSELLA BORNER, 1932 (INSECTA, 

COLLEMBOLA) CONSERVED 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, the generic name 
Cystioceras Borner in Schille, 1912, is hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The generic name Ceratophysella Borner, 1932 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by monotypy, Podura armata Nicolet, 
[1842], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2135. 

(3) The specific name armata Nicolet, [1842], as published in 
the binomen Podura armata (specific name of type species of 
Ceratophysella Borner, 1932), is hereby placed on the Official List 
of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2765. 

(4) The generic name Cystioceras Borner in Schille, 1912, as 
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed 
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2119. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2120 

An application for the conservation of the generic name 
Ceratophysella Borner, 1932 was first received from Dr. Peter 
Bellinger {University of California, Northridge) and Dr. Willem 
Ellis (University of Amsterdam) on 10 April 1975. It was sent to the 
printer on 16 May 1975 and published on 30 January 1976 in Bull, 
zool. Nom. vol. 32. pp. 274-276. Public notice of the possible use of 
the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the 
Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to five general and seven 
entomological serials. The application was supported by Dr. H. 
Janetschek (Universitdt Innsbruck) and Dr. J. P,.usek (Prague, 
Institute of Entomology). No adverse comment was received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 5 September 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on V. P. (80)29 for or 
against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 275. At 
the close of the voting period on 5 December 1980, the state of the 
voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21), receiving in the 
following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Brinck, 
Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Lehtinen, Hahn, Tortonese, Corliss, 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 255 

H:i™rs''e'„%aTet'- '"™"'°- ^°««"' ^'^"^'^y- «^PP'=". Nye. 
Negative Vote: Dupuis 

Ber„aydtBinTrr„d' K^f ^''""^^- ^° ™'^^ ^^ ---" "y 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

Offici^LfsK'aTd !!? are the original references for names placed on 
Opinion "" '"''^'' ^y ""^ ™""8 8'^^" ™ «he present 

''™'"&eSZ>,'t^T'l'p"/f '■ ''"'^ °^''*^^''^- '■"^- ^^''-'■^• 
^""'4?h ed'f p°uo"- "^' '■" ^™''"'"- '■''""'' ^"^ 0™r.cW«„rf, 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)29 were cast a<; 
set out above, that the request contained in that votingpaperlia 
been duly accepted under the plenary powers, and that the decision 
so taken, be.ng the decision of the Internat onal SmmissiSn on 
Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the presTt'opmion 

R.V. MELVILLE 

International Commission on Zoological NomfnclatZl 

London 
16 March 1981 



256 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



OPINION 1194 

ESCHARA SPONGITES PALLAS, 1766 (BRYOZOA): 

NEOTYPE DESIGNATED 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations 
of a type specimen hitherto made for the nominal species Eschara 
spongites Pallas, 1766, are hereby set aside and the specimen so 
proposed by Hastings, 1974, is hereby confirmed as neotype of that 
species. 

(2) The generic name Stylopoma Levinsen, 1909 (gender: 
neuter), type species, by subsequent designation by Canu & 
Bassler, 1909, Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766, is hereby placed on 
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name 
Number 2136. 

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) spongites Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen 
Eschara spongites (specific name of type species of 
Stylopoma Levinsen, 1909) (Name Number 2766); 

(b) errata Waters, 1878, as published in the binomen 
Lepralia errata (Name Number 2767). 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1826 

An apphcation to determine the identity of the type species of 
Stylopoma Levinsen, 1909 was first received from the late Dr. Anna 
B. Hastings on 6 March 1967. After an exchange of correspondence, 
a paper was sent to the printer on 4 October 1967 and published on 7 
December 1967 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 24, pp. 316-318. Public 
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given 
in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials. Dr. 
Lemche objected to certain aspects of the case, and asked in 
particular that a description and illustration of the proposed neotype 
of Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766, be published in the Bulletin. He 
himself provided photographs of the specimen, which is in the 
Copenhagen Zoological Museum. 

For a number of reasons, it was not possible to agree with Dr. 
Hastings on the presentation of the description and illustrations of 
the proposed neotype until 1973. Since so much time had elapsed 
since the pubHcation of the original application, it was thought best 
to repubhsh it, accompanied by the additional material, and this was 
sent to the printer on 24 October 1973 and published on 28 June 1974 
in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30, pp. 177-181, pi. 1. Public notice of the 
possible use of the plenary powers was again given in the same part 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 257 



of the Bulletin and to the statutory serials. No comment was 
received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 22 November 1977 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1977)18 for or against the proposals published in Bull. zool. Nom. 
vol. 30, p. 179. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1978 
the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Alvarado, Vokes, Mroczkowski, 
Sabrosky, Tortonese, Welch, Corliss, Starobogatov, Cogger, Nye, 
Heppell, Ride, Bayer 

Negative Votes: Eisenmann, Dupuis 

Late affirmative votes were returned by Habe and Brinck. No 
voting paper were returned by Bernardi, Binder, Kraus and 
WiUink. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Eisenmann: 'It is by no means clear to me from the application 
that predominant current usage favours the use of spongites for the 
American species rather than for the Mediterranean species to 
which the name is technically applicable.' 

Dupuis: 'Je refuse, ici comme ailleurs dans la plupart des cas, 
de designer un neotype car cette operation est toujours en quelque 
nature une falsification des faits. Je constate, en outre, dans le cas 
particulier: (1) que la selection d'un lectotvpe par Harmer est seul 
compatible avec la restriction anterieure (Recommandation 74A) 
de Pallas lui-meme; (2) que la Commission aurait tort, en usant de 
ses pleins pouvoirs, de porter atteinte a la Recommandation 74A; 
(3) que la requete — meme revisee — se presente dans une grande 
confusion chronologique et omet plusieurs references (p. ex. Hincks 
& Thornely); (4) que I'argument de I'alinea 14 est zoologique et 
subjectif et non pas nomenclatorial et objectif.' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references to names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruHng given in the present Opinion: 
errata, Lepralia,^ aters, 1878, Prac. Manchester lit. &philos. Soc, 

vol. 18, p. 11 
spongites, Eschara, Pallas, 1766, Elenchus Zoophytorum, p. 45 
Stylopoma Levinsen, 1909, Morphological and systematic studies 
on the cheilostomatous Bryozoa (Copenhagen), p. 324. 



258 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V. P. (77) 18 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision 
so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 
No. 1194. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
18 March 1980 



POSTSCRIPT BY THE SECRETARY 

I first began to prepare this Opinion in the spring of 1978, after 
Dr. Hastings' death. Among the letters on the file was one from Dr. 
Hastings saying that she intended publishing a full description of the 
proposed neotype 'elsewhere'. I therefore asked Professor J.S. 
Ryland {University College, Swansea, U.K.) as her literary executor 
if there was any sign of such a paper (published or unpublished) 
among her papers. Professor Ryland was then serving for two years 
in the University of the South Pacific, Fiji. On his return he wrote to 
me in January 1981 to say that he could find no such work and 
suggested that there had been a misunderstanding on my part: in the 
first application (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 24, p. 318, 1967) Dr. 
Hastings had referred to the description of the neotype as being 'in 
press', and this was copied uncritically in the republished 
application (vol. 30, p. 181, 1974). In fact, that description had been 
published in 1968 (Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Zool.), vol. 16(9), 
pp. 361-362, and the delay in publishing this Opinion has been 
unnecessary. This is regretted. R.V.M. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 259 



OPINION 1195 

PLEUROCERA RAFINESQUE, 1818 (GASTROPODA): 

THE TYPE SPECIES IS PLEUROCERUS ACUTUS 

RAFINESQUE /A^BLAINVILLE, 1824 

RULING. — (1) The authorship of the specific name acutus, 
as published in the binomen Pleurocerus acutus, is to be cited as 
"Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824". 

(2) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species 
for the nominal genus Pleurocera are hereby set aside and 
Pleurocerus acutus Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824 is hereby 
designated as type species of that genus. 

(3) The following generic names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (gender, feminine), 
type species, by designation under the plenary 
powers in (2) above, Pleurocerus acutus Rafinesque 
in Blainville, 1824 (Name Number 2137); 

(b) Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 (gender: feminine), type 
species, by monotypy, Anculosa (Lithasia) geniculata 
Haldeman, 1840 (Name Number 2138). 

(4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) acutus Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824, as published in 
the binomen Pleurocerus acutus (specific name of 
type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Name 
Number 2768); 

(b) geniculata Haldeman, 1840, as published in the 
combination Anculosa (Lithasia) geniculata (specific 
name of type species of Lithasia Haldeman, 1840) 
(Name Number 2769). 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)83 

An application for a ruling on the type species of Pleurocera 
Rafinesque, 1818 was first received by the late Dr. C.W. Stiles from 
the late Dr. H.A. Pilsbry on 20 January 1925. Dr. Pilsbry pointed 
out that 'Pleurocera [had] been universally used for species 
congeneric with P. acuta Raf . since 1872. . .'. Dr. Stiles pursued some 
correspondence on the case but had not circulated it to the 
Commission before he resigned on the grounds of ill health in 1935. 

The late Mr. Francis Hemming, the successor to Dr. Stiles as 
Secretary to the Commission, published a report on the case on 20 



260 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



April 1951 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 2, pp. 6-17. His report posed the 
question whether or not the plenary powers should be used to 
designate Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque {sic) as type species of 
Pleurocera and concluded with a recommendation that they should 
be so used. His recommendation was supported by Mr. Joshua L. 
Baily, Jr. and Dr. Emilio Berio; it was opposed by Dr. J.P.E. 
Morrison and Dr. Harald A. Rehder. Mr. Hemming sought advice 
from a number of specialists in Mollusca, but had no replies. When 
he handed the files over to me (as Assistant Secretary) in August 
1958, he placed a minute on Z.N.(S.)83 saying 'Case held up so far 
through difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number of comments 
from workers familiar with the group'. 

In December 1958 Dr. Joseph Rosewater wrote to ask 
whether an Opinion had ever been issued on the case and expressed 
support for Mr. Hemming's recommendation. In reply, I asked for 
the names of workers who might advise the Commission. After 
further extensive correspondence. I published a fresh report 
summarising the comments received in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 17, 
pp. 170-174 (8 April 1960). I had by that time returned to my 
permanent post with the Geological Survey of Great Britain (now 
incorporated in the Institute of Geological Sciences, London) and 
left the matter in the hands of the late Dr. W.E. China, my successor 
as Assistant Secretary to the Commission. 

A number of comments were received, mainly in favour of the 
course originally recommended by Mr. Hemming, but the case was 
not taken to a conclusion. 

In 1975, when I was again able to devote a small part of my 
time to the work of the Commission, I received an enquiry from Mr. 
David Heppell on the fate of the Pleurocera case. This led to a fresh 
round of correspondence. On 9 June 1976 I sent a revised report to 
the printer and this was published on 30 September 1976 in Bull, 
zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 105-113. PubUc notice of the possible use of 
the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the 
Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to nine general serials and 
three malacological serials. In this, the third published report on the 
case, I presented the issues concerning the generic names separately 
from those concerning the family-group names involved, so that 
they could be voted on separately. The latter have, in fact, not yet 
been resolved and are not dealt with in the present Opinion. 

My proposal to use the plenary powers to designate 
Pleurocera acuta (sic) as type species of Pleurocera was supported by 
Dr. A.H. Clarke {Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 197-198; vol. 36, pp. 
140-141), Dr. Harald Rehder (vol. 34, pp. 198-199), Dr. D.W. 
Taylor (vol. 34, p. 199), Dr. Joseph Rosewater (vol. 36, p. 140), Dr. 
Henry van der Schalie and Dr. Billy Isom. It was opposed by Dr. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 261 



Carol Stein (vol. 34, pp. 196-197; vol. 36, pp. 141-142), by Dr. 
J.P.E. Morrison (vol. 36, p. 139) and Professor Stansbery. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 24 November 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)31 in Part 1 on the authorship to be attributed to the name 
'Pleurocerus acutus\ and in Part 2 for or against the use of the 
plenary powers to designate that species as type species of 
Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818. The following note accompanied the 
voting paper: 

The essence of this case is whether the Code is to be strictly 
applied so that Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, is to be the 
type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, by subsequent 
monotypy; or whether the plenary powers should be used to 
designate Pleurocera acuta (with authorship to be decided in the 
voting paper) as type species. 

'Until a late stage in the history of the case, it was thought that 
the binomen Pleurocera acuta had been first published by 
Rafinesque, 1831. Dr. Morrison stated, however, in vol. 36, p. 139, 
that that name was preoccupied by Pleurocerus acutus (attributed by 
him to "Raf. in Blainville"), 1824. Dr. Carol Stein threw helpful 
light on this name (vol. 36, pp. 141-142) and this was discussed by 
the Secretary (pp. 144-145). 

'The documentation in the case is voluminous. It is therefore 
important not to lose sight of the evidence of usage. Evidence 
provided by Dr. Rosewater (vol. 35, pp. 108, 111-113) and Dr. 
Burch (vol. 36, pp. 196-197) shows 50 references between 1918 and 
1975 to the use of Pleurocera as though P. acuta were its type 
species, and 3 as though verrucosa were its type species. Dr. Burch 
also states (vol. 36, pp. 196-197) that a 'search of the non- 
malacological biological and palaeontological literature will show 
that Pleurocera has almost invariably been used as though P. acuta 
were its type species, and that such references number in their 
hundreds'. 

At the close of the voting period on 24 February 1981 the state 
of the voting was as follows: 

Part 1 

That the author of Pleurocerus acutus is 'Blainville, 1824' — 
nine (9), received in the following order: Holthuis, Trjapitzin, 
Alvarado, Habe, Heppell, Hahn, Tortonese, Brinck, Ride 

That the author of Pleurocerus acutus is 'Rafinesque in 
Blainville, 1824' — fourteen (14), received in the following order: 



262 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



Melville, Willink, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Corliss, Welch, 
Dupuis, Lehtinen, Cogger, Binder, Bayer, Nye, Sabrosky, 
Bernardi 

Part 2 

Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Trjapitzin, Mroczkowski, 
Alvarado, Habe, Heppell, Corliss, Hahn, Welch, Tortonese, 
Brinck, Ride, Binder, Bayer, Nye, Sabrosky, Bernardi 

Negative Votes — three (3): Starobogatov, Lehtinen, Cogger 

Abstention — Dupuis 

Halvorsen and Vokes were on leave of absence. No voting 
paper was returned by Kraus. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Heppell: 'More than fifty years ago the ICZN was asked to 
decide whether the type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, 
should be P. verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, or P. acuta Rafinesque, 
1831. Whatever the merits of the arguments on each side, the 
original proposals and most of the subsequent comments have been 
in favour of P. acuta . The preponderance of usage also indicates that 
P. acuta is a good candidate for the use of the Commission's plenary 
power. On two previous occasions, after publication of the case in 
1951 and 1960, complications involving names of the family group 
prevented a vote being taken on the question of the type species. 
With the passage of time the case for P. acuta has been strengthened 
by further general usage and some of the authors who formerly 
opposed it have changed their minds. It therefore looks suspiciously 
like sabotage when one of the few remaining advocates for P. 
verrucosa introduces at a very late stage in the discussion the 
assertion that P. acuta Rafinesque, 1831, cannot be named as type 
species because it is preoccupied. Unfortunately the Secretary, on 
the assumption that this information is correct and simply 
overlooked by all other workers who have taken an active interest in 
the case, has substituted " Pleurocerus acutus'' for Pleurocera acuta 
on the voting paper, dating the taxon from 1824 and requesting an 
additional vote to determine its authorship. If Pleurocerus acutus 
Blainville, 1824, is seriously to be considered as type species of 
Pleurocera, why was it not mentioned by Morrison in his comment 
in 1951? Although it may be argued that the 1824 reference is in a 
rare publication, it is well known that the text of Blainville's 1825 
Manuel is identical and readily available in any good malacological 
library. 

'There is no doubt that Pleurocerus is an incorrect subsequent 
spelling for Pleurocera, even though it was also adopted by other 



Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 263 



authors, for example Rang, 1829 (Manuel) and G.B. Sowerby, 1842 
(Conch. Manual 2nd Edn). The status of the two specific names 
included by Blainville is obviously that of nomina nuda and they 
have always been regarded as such up till now. The descriptions of 
Blainville's two (unnamed) subgenera cannot be applied to the 
specific names. Even if ''Oxytreme'" is regarded as an incorrect 
spelling for Oxytrema one cannot argue a single combined 
description of the subgenus and species under Article 16a(vi) as 
''Oxytreme'' is not a new nominal genus. Even if it were it is evident 
from Dr. Stein's own argument that Oxytrema acuta of 1824 could 
not be identified without the presumption that it is identical to 
Pleurocera acuta of 1831. I am not aware that a nomen duhium can 
become acceptable with its original date and authorship if the same 
name is subsequently published by another author and accompanied 
by an adequate description. 

T am loath to impede the final progression of this case to a 
conclusive vote by invoking Bylaw 24, but I do earnestly request the 
Secretary to reconsider the attribution to be given to the taxon 
Pleurocera acuta and to treat an affirmative vote as affirming only 
that P. acuta is to be regarded as type species of Pleurocera by 
plenary power, together with the other matters arising 
consequentially therefrom. My vote is to be regarded as an 
affirmative vote but with Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, 
substituted for Pleurocerus acutus, 1824, wherever the latter name 
occurs in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the voting paper; my vote in 
paragraph 1 (which I consider unnecessary) is not to imply that I 
consider Pleurocerus acutus Blainville, 1824, as anything other than 
a nomen nudum; I vote against paragraph 5 as an incorrect 
subsequent spelling has no status in nomenclature as a separate 
taxon, so there is no '"Pleurocerus Blainville, 1824" to put on any 
List, and the Commission was not required to decide whether this 
name was to be regarded as an emendation.' 

Reply by the Secretary: I have not acceded to Mr. Heppell's 
request to re-open this case under Bylaw 24 because I do not think 
that the proposition that Pleurocerus acutus Rafinesque in 
Blainville, 1824 is a nomen nudum is tenable. I consulted Dr. 
Holthuis on this point, and he concurs with my view that the name 
acutus is indeed made available in Blainville. The relevant passage 
is: PLEUROCERE. Pleurocerus. 

Animal incompletement connu, ayant la tete 
proboscidiforme; deux tentacules lateraux, subules, aigus; les yeux 
aleur base externe. 

Coquille ovale ou pyramidale; ouverture oblongue; la levre 
exterieure mince; I'interne collee contre la columelle, qui est Hsse et 
torse, sans ombilic. 



264 Bull. zool. Norn. , vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



Opercule come, ou membraneux. 

A. Especes dont I'ouverture est seulement oblongue. 
Ex. Le Pleurocere oblong. Pleurocerus oblongus. 

B. Especes dont I'ouverture est aigue aux deux extremites, et 
dont I'anterieure se prolonge en une longue pointe aigue. 

(G. OXYTREME. Rafin.) 

Ex. Le PI. aigu. P. acutus. 

Observ. Nous n'avons vu ni I'animal, ni la coquille de ce genre, 
propose par M. Rafinesque; peut-etre n'est-ce que la paludine 
coupee de M. Say? 

In Section B. of Pleurocerus, while ''Oxytreme" is clearly a 
vernacular name and not available, P. acutus is associated with the 
description of the Section, in which it is the only species. The name 
is, therefore, available and can only be disposed of by suppression 
under the plenary powers. An application to that effect could be 
considered on its own merits, independently of the determination of 
the nominal type species of Pleurocera. 

The status of Pleurocerus (whether an emendation or an 
incorrect subsequent spelling) has not been considered by the 
Commission and is in any case peripheral to the main issue. R.V.M. 

Dupuis: 'II est evident que Pleurocerus acutus n'est pas 
attribuable a de Blainville, qui n'a vu ni I'animal, ni la coquille, et 
n'indique aucune origine geographique. L'attribution du genre a 
Rafinesque est attestee par Blainville lui-meme. 

'L'attribution de I'espece a Rafinesque pent resulter de 
plusieurs considerations: 

'(a) Blainville, qui etait redacteur du Journal de Physique, de 
Chimie et d'Histoire Naturelle, public a Paris (non Bruxelles, contre 
Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, p. 105) a ete de bonne heure en rapport 
avec Rafinesque, comme le prouve I'article de celui-ci dans le tome 
88, 1819, de ce journal. 

'(b) II a existe un manuscrit de 1821 de Rafinesque sur les 
Gastropodes de I'Ohio et du Kentucky. Rafinesque, 1831, p. 6 (non 
reproduit dans Binney & Tryon, 1864) declare en effet: "In 1821 I 
wrote the Monograph of the Univalve shells of Ohio and Kentucky, 
which I sent to Brussels for publication: it reached that city when 
Mr. Bory [de St. Vincent, redacteur des Annales generales des 
Sciences physiques, Bruxelles] had returned to Paris, and I have 
never heard when it was printed..." Cette monographic n'a jamais 
paru, ni dans les Annales de Bory, ni dans le Journal de Blainville, 
mais I'existence du manuscrit dans les mains des zoologistes frangais 
pent expliquer I'origine des informations de Blainville. 

'(c) Rafinesque, 1831, p. 2, s'attribue I'espece acuta des 1818 
(date de recolte ou de description in litt., mais non point de 
publication!) et indique son origine: Lake Erie [ce qui est 



Bull. zool. Norn . , vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 265 



compatible en lieu et date — avec I'Ohio du manuscrit de 1821]. 

'Pour ces raisons, je vote pour acuta Rafinesque in Blainville, 
1824. 

'Je m'abstiens sur tous les autres points, car les considerations 
d'usage mises en avant en faveur de acuta comme type du genre sont 
difficilement testables pour un non specialiste etranger aux Etats- 
Unis (toutes les considerations d'usage n'ont, du reste, en general, 
qu'une valeur locale, temporaire ou disciplinaire souvent exageree 
par les requerants)' 

Cogger. 'Where competent specialists disagree on 
nomenclatural matters one should invoke the plenary powers with 
caution. While there is no doubt from the various submissions that 
most workers in this century have accepted that acuta is the type 
species of Pleurocera, I remain unconvinced that nomenclatural 
stability would be seriously affected by the strict application of the 
Code, especially in view of the widely-acknowledged instability (by 
virtually all parties to the dispute) of pleurocerid systematics. Both 
sides (e.g. Stein and Davis) have resorted to special (and 
unsubstantiated) pleading for extreme positions, but neither the 
Code nor current usage should be sacrosanct. However, I remain 
unconvinced that stability of nomenclature is likely to be seriously 
compromised, and vote against the application.' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for the names placed 
on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
acutus, Pleurocerus, Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824, Diet. Sci. nat., 

vol. 32, p. 236 
geniculata, Anculosa (Lithasia), Haldeman, 1840, Monogr. 

Limniades or freshwater univalve shells of North America. 

Suppl. to No. 1, p.l 
Lithasia Haldeman, 1840, Monogr. Limniades or freshwater 

univalve shells of North America, Suppl. to No. 1, p. 1 
Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, ^mer. mon. Mag. crit. Review, vol. 3, 

p. 355. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V. P. (80)31 were cast as 

set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has 

been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision 

so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on 

Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 

No 1195 

i>u. Liyj. j^ y MELVILLE, Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London, 20 March 1981 



266 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



OPINION 1196 

BEYRICHIA M'COY, 1846 (CRUSTACEA: OSTRACODA): 

DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES AND OF NEOTYPE 

FOR THAT SPECIES 

RULING . — ( 1 ) Under the plenary powers 

(a) all designations of type specimen for the nominal species 
Beyrichia kloedeni M'Coy, 1846 hitherto made are 
hereby set aside and the specimen proposed by Siveter & 
Sylvester-Bradley, 1976, is hereby designated as neotype 
of that species; 

(b) all designations of type species for the nominal genus 
Beyrichia M'Coy, 1846 hitherto made are hereby set 
aside and Beyrichia kloedeni M'Coy, 1846, as 
interpreted by the neotype designated in (a) above is 
hereby designated as type species of that genus. 

(2) The generic name Beyrichia M'Coy, 1846 (gender: 
feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in 
(l)(b) above, Beyrichia kloedeni M'Coy, 1846, is hereby placed on 
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name 
Number 2139. 

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) kloedeni M'Coy, as published in the binomen 
Beyrichia kloedeni (specific name of type species of 
Beyrichia M'Coy, 1846) (Name Number 2770); 

(b) tuherculatus Kloeden, 1834, as published in the 
binomen Battus tuherculatus (Name Number 2771). 

(4) The family name BEYRICHIIDAE Matthew, 1886 
(type genus Beyrichia M'Coy, 1846) is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
517. 

(5) The generic name Beyrichia Boll, 1847 (a junior homonym 
of Beyrichia M'Coy, 1846) is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name 
Number 2120. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1117 

An application to designate the type species of Beyrichia and 
the type specimen of that species was first received from the late 
Professor P.C. Sylvester-Bradley and Dr. Stuart A. Levinson on 4 
May 1956. It was not sent to the printer until I read the file as 
Assistant Secretary in September 1959, when a revised version was 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 267 



sent to the applicants for their approval. This was sent to the printer 
on 27 October 1959 and published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 17, pp. 227-230. No use of the plenary powers was called 
for. No comment was received. 

FIRST VOTE OF THE COMMISSION 

On 1 December 1960 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1960)30 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 
17, pp. 229-230. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1961 
there were 24 affirmative votes and one negative vote from Key, 
who observed: '(1) The citing of an older name (Battus tuberculatus) 
in the synonymy of Beyrichia kloedeni by M'Coy renders kloedeni 
clearly a replacement name and hence an objective synonym of 
tuberculatus, invalid as long as the latter is valid. (2) Under Article 
72d, therefore, the type oi kloedeni must be the type oi tuberculatus, 
and the selection by the applicants of a different type is invalid. (3) 
Under Article 67e, furthermore, tuberculatus is the type species of 
Beyrichia. It is not true, of course, that kloedeni was "still born" and 
"invalidated for all time", but otherwise the conclusions of Kesling 
& Wagner are in accordance with the Code. Since the applicants do 
not invoke the plenary powers, their request cannot be acceded to.' 

As Dr. Key's view was undoubtedly correct. Professor 
Sylvester-Bradley was invited to write a short note for the Bulletin 
asking for those powers to be used. However, he found himself 
unable to agree with Dr. Key and declined to do so. He suggested 
that Dr. Anders Martinsson be approached, but no such note was 
ever received from him. 

REVIVAL OF THE CASE 

On 1 November 1973 a letter was received from Dr. David J. 
Siveter enquiring as to the fate of the original application by 
Professor Sylvester-Bradley and Dr. Levinson. After a lengthy 
exchange of correspondence, a fresh application was prepared and 
sent to the printer on 19 February 1976. It was published on 26 June 
1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 61-64. Public notice of the 
possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same 
part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, six general 
serials and two palaeontological serials. No comment was received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 24 November 1980 the members of the Commission were 



268 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)32 for or against the proposals contained in Bull. zool. Nom., 
vol. 33, pp. 63-64. At the close of the voting period on 24 February 
1981, the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19), received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Trjapitzin, 
Alvarado, Starobogatov, Habe, Corliss, Hahn, Welch, Tortonese, 
Heppell, Brinck, Lehtinen, Binder, Bayer, Bernardi, Nye 

Negative Votes — four (4): Dupuis, Ride, Cogger, Sabrosky 

Halvorsen and Vokes were on leave of absence. No voting 
paper was returned from Kraus. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Heppell: 'This can be regarded as a straightforward case for 
the application of Article 70a. Beyrichia kloedeni M'Coy can then be 
interpreted as a replacement name for Battus tuberculatus M'Coy 
non Kloeden and as its type material is extant but unsatisfactory the 
need for it to be replaced by a neotype designated under the plenary 
powers follows as a matter of course.' 

Dupuis: 'II me paraitrait preferable de considerer la 
synonymic kloedeni M'Coy, 1846 / tuberculatus Kloeden, 1834, 
donnee par M'Coy, comme une identification erronee d'espece- 
type. En ce cas, Beyrichia demeurerait avec son espece-type 
kloedeni, fondee sur le lectotype de Sylvester-Bradley et Levinson. 
Tuberculatus, avec son neotype choisi par Martinsson, demeurerait 
utihsable pour inclusion — eventuellement — dans tout autre 
genre.' 

Ride: 'While I agree with the intention of the application, the 
issue is not one of setting aside an earlier designation. A 
replacement name has ipso facto the same type as the name it 
replaces (Art. 72d). There is no designation to be set aside. The 
appHcants should be seeking either for (a) B. kloedeni M'Coy, 1846, 
to be declared a species described in synonymy and the proposed 
neotype recognised for it, or (b) B. kloedeni M'Coy, 1846, to be 
suppressed and the "material from Ireland" to be set aside in favour 
of the proposed neotype for that species.' 

Cogger: 'The authors simply state that the application of the 
Code would result in changes to names that have been accepted by 
most (though clearly not all) workers for the past 26 years. They 
have not demonstrated that such an upset of current usage would 
seriously affect stability . ' 



Bull. zool. Nom.,\o\ 38, pt 4, November 1981 269 



ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for the names placed 
on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the 
present Opinion: 
Beyrichia M'Coy, 1846, Synopsis Silurian fossils of Ireland... 

(Dublin), p.57 
Beyrichia Boll, 1847, Palaeontographica, vol. 1, p. 127 
BEYRICHIIDAE Matthew, 1886, Proc. Trans, roy. Soc. Canada 

(l)vol. 3(4),pp. 63 
kloedeni, Beyrichia, M'Coy, 1846, Synopsis Silurian fossils of 

Ireland... (Dublin), p.58 
tuberculatus, Battus, Kloeden, 1834, Verstein. Mark Brandenburg, 
p. 112. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V. P. (80)32 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision 
so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 
No. 1196. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
24 March 1981 



270 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



OPINION 1197 

CYPRAEA PIPERITA GRAY, 1825, C. COM PTONII GRAY, 

1847, C. B ICO LOR GASKOIN, 1849 AND C. ANGUSTATA 

GMELIN, 1791 (GASTROPODA): PLACED ON THE 

OFFICIAL LIST 

RULING. — (1) The request for the use of the plenary powers 
to suppress the specific nam& piperita Gray, 1825, as published in the 
binomen Cypraea piperita, is hereby refused. 

(2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) piperita Gray, 1825, as published in the binomen 
Cypraea piperita (Name Number 2772) ; 

(b) comptonii Gray, 1847, as published in the binomen 
Cypraea comptonii (Name Number 2773) ; 

(c) bicolor Gaskoin, 1849, as published in the binomen 
Cypraea bicolor (Name Number 2774) ; 

(d) angustata Gmehn, 1791 , as published in the binomen 
Cypraea angustata, and as interpreted by the neotype 
designated in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 19, p. 319 (Name 
Number 2775). 

(3) The specific name verconis Cotton & Godfrey, 1932, as 
published in the binomen Notocypraea verconis (a junior objective 
synonym of Cypraea angustata Gmelin, 1791) is hereby placed on 
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 1093. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1510 

An application for the suppression of Cypraea piperita Gray, 
1825, under the plenary powers was first received from Dr. R.J. 
Griffiths on 30 November 1961. This was published in Bull. zool. 
Nom. vol. 19, pp. 317-322, September 1962, and voted on in Voting 
Paper (1964)11, of which the voting period ended on 1 October 
1964. Fourteen affirmative and two negative votes were received, 
but because of a number of critical comments, no Opinion was 
published. 

In October 1974, these comments were communicated to Dr. 
Griffiths. A revised application was prepared by Mrs. Green (then 
Scientific Assistant to the Commission), sent to the printer on 5 
March 1975 and published on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. 
Nom, . vol. 32, pp. 115-120. The problem was broken down into two 
parts: in the first part, the four following choices were offered: (1) 
direct application of the Code; C. piperita and C. comptonii could 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 271 



then represent two species with C. bicolor representing either a 
subspecies of one of them or a third species; (2) use of the plenary 
powers to designate the lectotype of C. bicolor as neotype of C 
piperita, so that the former name would disappear as a junior 
objective synonym of the latter; (3) use of the plenary powers to 
suppress piperita so that only C. comptonii and C. bicolor would 
survive as valid names; (4) use of the plenary powers to suppress C. 
piperita Gray, 1825 and all uses of that name prior to its use by 
Sowerby in 1832, so as to preserve the name in its current use. In the 
second part, the holotype of Notocypraea verconis Cotton & 
Godfrey, 1932 was designated as neotype of Cypraea angustata 
Gmelin, 1791 and it was proposed that the latter name be placed on 
the Official List. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 24 November 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper 
(1980)33, in part 1 of one of the four choices mentioned above, 
and in part 2 for or against the proposals concerning C. angustata 
Gmehn, 1791. At the close of the voting period on 24 February 1981 
the state of the Voting was as follows: 

Parti 

Choice 1, Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the 
following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, 
Trjapitzin, Alvarado, Starobogatov, Hahn, Welch, Tortonese, 
Heppell, Dupuis, Brinck, Lehtinen, Cogger, Binder, Bayer, Nye, 
Sabrosky, Bernardi 

Choice 2, Affirmative Vote — Habe 

Choice 3, Affirmative Vote — none (0) 

Choice 4, Affirmative Vote — Corliss, Ride 

Part 2 

Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Habe, 
Corliss. Hahn, Welch, Tortonese, Heppell, Dupuis, Brinck, Ride, 
Lehtinen, Binder, Bayer, Nye, Sabrosky, Bernardi 

Negative Votes: Mroczkowski, Alvarado, Cogger 

Halvorsen and Vokes were on leave of absence. No vote was 
returned by Kraus. 

The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Hahn: 'If syntypes of C. piperita sensu Gray, 1825, are 
preserved, and if it is shown by them that specimens of C. comptonii 



272 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



are slightly different, then apparently two different taxa are present. 
I therefore vote for choice 1.' 

Cogger. 'In regard to Part 1 I would agree with Drs 
Mroczkowski and Riedel, and with the comments of the late Dr. 
Lemche {Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 117) that a vote for any but 
choice 1 would be an intrusion into a complex taxonomic problem. 
In regard to Part 2, the formal action taken in paragraph 7 (viz. to 
designate the holotype of C verconis as neotype of C. angustata) 
obviates the need for the Commission to vote on the proposals. 
However, such an action in the submission is not only of dubious 
propriety (given the unresolved taxonomic problems) but is invalid 
in that it fails to fulfil the requirements of Article 75a and c. 
Incidentally, while deploring Iredale's taxonomic method, I must 
accept his logic. The probability of a southern and southeastern 
Australian mollusc with direct development being the species 
before Gualterius in 1742 is exceedingly small.' 

fiflyer: 'Consultation with the malacological staff and 
examination of specimens in the collections of the Smithsonian 
Institution, consideration of the arguments presented and reference 
to the recent literature on cowries convince me that the problem of 
C piperita-comptonii-bicolor is basically taxonomic. The names 
involved are legally available, the types are extant and available for 
study, and it remains for the malacologists to sort out the taxa in a 
thorough and modern way. To suppress names or establish neotypes 
in order to objectively but artificially synonymise nominal taxa that 
in fact may not be conspecific strikes me as premature and rash. My 
malacological colleagues unanimously agree with my view that the 
names piperita, comptonii and bicolor should remain available 
pending thorough taxonomic review, after which the nomenclatural 
situation can be reappraised.' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for the names placed 
on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the 
present Opinion: 

angustata, Cypraea, Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat. ed. 13, vol. 1, p. 3421 
bicolor, Cypraea, Gaskoin, 1849, Proc. zool. Soc. London, vol. 16 

(186), p. 92 
comptonii, Cypraea, J.E. Gray, 1S47, Juke's Voyage of H. M.S. Fly, 

vol. 2, Appendix, p. 356 
piperita, Cypraea, J.E. Gray, 1825, Zool. Journal, vol. 1, p. 498 
verconis, Notocypraea, Cotton & Godfrey, 1932, South Austr. Nat., 

vol. 13, p. 41. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 273 



CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V. P. (80)33 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposal to use the plenary powers has been 
duly rejected and that the decision so taken, being the decision of 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly 
recorded in the present Opinion No. 1197. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

25 March 1981 



.274 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



OPINION 1198 

SMINTHOPSIS MURINA VAR. CONSTRICTA SPENCER, 

1896 (MAMMALIA, MARSUPIALIA) SUPPRESSED 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the species-group 
name constricta Spencer, 1896, as published in the binomen 
Sminthopsis murina xar. constricta, is hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The species-group name constricta Spencer, 1896, as 
published in the combination Sminthopsis murina var. constricta, 
and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names 
in Zoology with the Name Number 1094. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2080 

An application for the suppression of Sminthopsis murina var. 
constricta Spencer, 1896, was first received from Dr. M. Archer 
(Queensland Museum, Brisbane, Australia) on 19 August 1974. 
After an exchange of correspondence, it was sent to the printer on 9 
June 1976 and published on 30 September 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. 
33, pp. 127-128. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well 
as to the statutory serials, to six general and two mammalogical 
serials. No comment was received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 24 November 1980 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1980)34 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 
33, p. 128. At the close of the voting period on 24 February 1981 , the 
state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18), received in the following 
order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Trjapitzin, 
Alvarado, Starobogatov, Habe, Coriiss, Hahn, Tortonese, Brinck, 
Ride, Lehtinen, Bayer, Binder, Bemardi, Sabrosky 

Negative Votes — five (5): Welch, Heppell, Dupuis, Cogger, 
Nye 

Vokes and Halvorsen were on leave of absence. No voting 
paper was returned by Kraus. 

The following comments were returned by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Welch: 'There is a chance that the type may still be found.' 

Heppell: T vote against the proposal on the grounds that the 
taxon Sminthopsis murina var. constricta Spencer is only of 



Bull. zool. Norn . , vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 275 



infrasubspecific status and consequently has no status in 
nomenclature. The applicant presents no evidence to the contrary 
and from his difficulty in associating the name with any recognised 
subspecies it must be assumed that there was nothing in Spencer's 
original description to suggest that it was applied to anything more 
than an individual variant. It would be pointless to look for the types 
of named varieties as, to their authors, the two concepts of a type 
and a variety would have been mutually exclusive. As such names 
were generally not recognised as being available even to designate 
subspecific taxa, it would be better if the Commission did not accord 
them the false status imphed by the untenable Monaco ruling even 
to the extent of adding one to the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Names.' 

Dupuis: 'Je n'estime pas devoir supprimer (c'est toujours 
commettre un faux) les nomina dubia. S'ils sont vraiment douteux, 
ils ne genent personne. S'ils deviennent genants, c'est qu'ils cessent 
d'etre douteux et s'ils ont priorite, il faut alors le reconnaitre 
loyalement.' 

Cogger: 'The Commission is being asked to use its plenary 
powers to resolve what is primarily a taxonomic problem. Stability 
of nomenclature is not seriously at issue, and the matter can be 
resolved by available taxonomic procedures.' 

Nye: 'The nomenclatural type of S. ooldea should be 
designated as the neotype of 5. murina var. constricta. S. ooldea was 
established only in 1965 so cannot be regarded as a long-established 
name.' 

Bernardi: 'II me semble justifie de supprimer le nom constricta 
parce que le type de cette entite n'est pas connu avec certitude.' 

ORIGINAL REFERENCE 

The following is the original reference to a name placed on an 
Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
constricta, Sminthopsis murina var., Spencer, 1896, Rep. Horn 
Exped. Central Australia, pt. 2, Zoology, p. 33. 

CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V. P. (80)34 were cast as 
set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has 
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision 
so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 
No. 1198. 

R.V. MELVILLE, Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London, 8 April 1981 



276 Bull. zool. Norn. , vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



DIRECTION 109 
SEVEN FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN INSECTA 
HETEROPTERA PLACED ON OFFICIAL LIST 

RULING. — (1) The following family-group names in Insecta 
Heteroptera are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: 

(a) CIMICIDAE Latreille, [1802] (as 'Cimicides'), type 
genus Cimex Linnaeus, 1758 (Official List of Generic 
Names No. 275) (Name Number 524); 

(b) ANTHOCORIDAE Fieber, 1837 (as 
'Anthocoridea'), type genus Anthocoris Fallen, 1814 
(Official List of Generic Names No. 524) (Name 
Number 525); 

(c) NABINI Costa, 1852, type genus Nabis Latreille, 
[1802] (Official List of Generic Names No. 
525)(Name Number 526); 

(d) PROSTEMMATIDAE Reuter, 1900, type genus 
Prostemma Laporte, [1832] (Official List of Generic 
Names No. 1186) (Name Number 527); 

(e) NOTONECTIDAE, Latreille, [1802] (as 
'Notonectariae'), type genus Notonecta Linnaeus, 
1758 (Official List of Generic Names No. 526) (Name 
Number 528); 

(f) REDUVIID AE Latreille , 1807 (as 'Reduvini') , type 
genus Reduvius Fabricius, 1775 (Official List of 
Generic Names No. 527) (Name Number 529); 

(g) TRIATOMINI Jeannel, 1919, type genus Triatoma 
Laporte, [1832] (Official List of Generic Names No. 
528) (Name Number 530). 

(2) The following incorrect original spellings of family-group 
names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

fa) Cimicides Latreille , [ 1 802] (Name Number 487) ; 

(b) Anthocoridea Fieber, 1837 (Name Number 488); 

(c) Prostemmina Reuter, 1890 (Name Number 489); 

(d) Notonectariae Latreille , [ 1 802] (Name Number 490) ; 

(e) Reduvini Latreille, 1807 (Name Number 491). 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)958 

In May 1955 an application was received from the late 
Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski for the placing on the Official List of 
family-group names in Hemiptera Heteroptera based on generic 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 277 



names already dealt with by the Commission in Opinions 81 and 
104. Professor Jaczewski asked for seven names to be placed on the 
Official List and for 83 names (incorrect original and subsequent 
spellings, and names based on invalid generic names) to be placed 
on the Official Index. 

The application was eventually edited by the late Dr. China 
and published on 2 February 1962 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 19, pp. 
15-22. No use of the plenary powers was involved. No comment was 
received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 18 January 1963 the members of the Commission were 
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 
(1963)2 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 
19, pp. 15-22. Dr. China, as Assistant Secretary, sent the following 
note with the Voting Paper: 

'The Assistant Secretary disagrees with the policy of placing 
innumerable such incorrect spellings on the Official Index, and 
knows that a number of Commissioners will support him in this. It is 
therefore suggested that Commissioners vote to place on the 
Official Index only those names that are listed by Professor 
Jaczewski as incorrect original spellings of family-group names, and 
those based on either invalid or misidentified type genera.' This 
reduced the 83 names proposed by Professor Jaczewski to 13. 

At the close of the voting period on 18 April 1963, the state of 
the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative Votes — twenty-four (24) received in the 
following order: China, Hering, Holthuis, Bonnet, Vokes, 
Obruchev, Key, Riley, Mayr, Uchida, Lemche, Alvarado, Bradley, 
Jaczewski, Stoll, do Amaral, Hemming, Binder, Brinck, Boschma, 
Tortonese, Mertens, Kiihnelt, Evans 

Negative Votes — none (0) 

A late affirmative vote was received from Munroe. No voting 
papers were returned by Borchsenius and Miller. 

The following comments were sent in by members of the 
Commission with their voting papers: 

Key: 'While thus voting for the Assistant Secretary's 
restriction of the original apphcation, I wish to put on record my 
opinion that the proper way to deal with this sort of situation is for 
the Commission, by formal vote, to adopt an appropriate Direction 
or repeal or amend an existing Direction, as may be required.' 

Bradley: 'It must be kept in mind that we are dealing with 
family-group names, not necessarily family names. We must not 
invalidate any name with a termination that could be used for a 



278 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



family-group taxon of whatever rank. Since terminations have not 
been fixed for tribe, subtribe and superfamily, that means that we 
may not interfere with any combination of genus and suffix that is 
Hnguistically properly formed. Just as a genus, proposed first as a 
subgenus, dates from that event, so a family, if proposed as a 
subfamily or tribe, also dates from that occasion.' 

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 

At this distance in time, and when the protagonists are no 
longer living, it is impossible to find out why an Opinion or 
Direction was not published at that time (1963). When I came to re- 
examine the file at the end of 1977, 1 judged it prudent to consult the 
President of the Commission, Dr. C.W. Sabrosky, on the steps to be 
taken. He took the view that, as the family-group names placed on 
the Official List were all well known names in current use, a 
Direction could be issued without a further vote being taken. We 
also agreed that the names to be placed on the Index could be 
reduced from the 13 proposed by Dr. China to the incorrect original 
spelhngs; and in the light of the comment by the late Professor 
Chester Bradley, I found these to number five. The present 
Direction has accordingly been drafted in accordance with those 
terms of reference. 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references to the names placed 
on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the 
present Direction: 
ANTHOCORIDAE Fieber, 1837 (as "Anthocoridea"), Beitr. 

Nat. Heilwiss. vol. 1, p. 106 
CIMICIDAE Latreille, [1802] (as "Cimicides"), Hist. nat. gen. 

panic. Crust. Ins. vol. 3, p. 240 
NABINI Costa, 1852, Cimicum regni neapolitani centuria tertia 

et quartae fragmentum (Naples), p. 66 
NOTONECTIDAE Latreille, [1802] (as "Notonectariae"), Hist. 

nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. vol. 3, p. 253 
PROSTEMMATIDAE Reuter, 1890 (as "Prostemmina") Rev. 

Entomol. Caen, vol. 9, p. 289 
REDUVIIDAE Latreille, 1807 (as "Reduvini"), Gen. Crust. Inst. 

(Paris) vol. 3, p. 126 
TRIATOMINI Jeannel, 1919, InsectesHemipteres vol. 3, Voy. Ch. 

Alluaud et R. Jeannel en Afrique Orientate, pp. 176, 177, 309. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 279 



CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on V. P. (63)2 were cast as set out 
above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been 
duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly 
recorded in the present Direction No. 109. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
28 April 1981 



280 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



DIRECTION 110 

/XODE5 LATREILLE, 1795 (ARACHNIDA: ACARINA): 

ENTRY IN OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES 

CONFIRMED 

RULING.— (1) The generic name Ixodes Latreille, 1795 
(gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Acarus reduvius 
Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby confirmed in the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 208. 

(2) The specific name ricinus Linnaeus, 1758, as pubHshed in 
the binomen Acarus ricinus (the valid name under Article 24a, for 
the type species of Ixodes Latreille, 1795) is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 
2787. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1130 

The generic name Ixodes Latreille, 1795 {Mag. encyclop. vol. 
4, p. 18) was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology in Opinion 73 {Smiths, misc. Colls, vol. 73, no. 1 (Publ. 
2657), pp. 23-31, 1922) in the following entry: "Ixodes Latreille, 
1796a, 179, type Acarus ricinus Linnaeus, 1758.' Unfortunately, 
that entry was incorrect in two respects. First, the generic name 
Ixodes was first published by Latreille in 1795, and secondly, the 
type species is not Acarus ricinus. The entry was therefore withheld 
for further study when the first instalment of the Official Lists was 
published in book form in 1958. 

It is true that in both 1796 {Precis caract. Ins., p. 179) and in 
[1802] {Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins., vol. 3, p. 66) Latreille again 
published Ixodes and that on both occasions the only species 
referred to the genus was Acarus ricinus Linnaeus, 1758; but 
nothing can override the fact that the genus was established in 1795 
with Acarus reduvius Linnaeus, 1758 as the sole included species, 
hence the type species by monotypy. 

In 1901 Neumann {Mem. Soc. zool. France, vol. 4, p. 282) 
clearly synonymized Acarus reduvius and Acarus ricinus, and chose 
the latter as the valid name for the species. He is the First Reviser 
under Article 24a. 

In 1957, the late Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the 
Commission, sought the advice of Dr. Turk on the best solution to 
the Ixodes problem. In an unpublished note later circulated to the 
Commission, Dr. Turk purported to show that Neumann had not 
acted as first reviser in terms of Copenhagen Decision No. 123, 
although I do not see how that position can be upheld. He showed 
that A. reduvius was a composite species, because the references 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 281 



cited in synonymy refer to an insect while the description clearly 
denotes a female of A. ricinus before it has had its first meal of 
blood. Dr. Turk therefore (a) designated the specimen on which 
Linnaeus based his description as the lectotype oiA. reduvius, and 
(b), assuming that no author had preceded him, purported to act as 
First Reviser in designating y4. reduvius as the vahd name among the 
two synonyms, A. reduvius and yl. ricinus. It seems to me, however, 
that the grounds upon which Mr. Hemming advised Dr. Turk to 
reject Neumann's first-reviser action — namely, that A. reduvius 
was a composite species — are without foundation. However, as 
that note was never published, neither his lectotype selection nor his 
purported action on the specific name has any standing. 

On 26 September 1957 Mr. Hemming invited the members of 
the Commission to vote under the One-Month Rule on 
V.P.(O.M.)(57)18 for or against the proposals put forward over Dr. 
Turk's name. At the close of the voting period on 26 October 1957, 
there were 18 affirmative and two negative votes. In the course of 
the voting, Mr. Hemming received the following letter from Dr. 
Otto Kraus, which caused him to withdraw the voting paper. Dr. 
Kraussaid: 

'I can never agree with the proposals made by Dr. Turk. To 
my mind Neumann, 1901, is to be treated as First Reviser. In 1901 he 
selected one of the two names {ricinus, reduvius), i.e. ricinus, as the 
valid name for this species of tick. Since 1901 the name ricinus has 
been used continuously, and reduvius is a long-forgotten name. I 
feel that the proposal in the voting paper is against the principle of 
stability and I hope that it will be rejected. The name ricinus is a very 
well known and important one and is used in all modern textbooks 
and other general literature. It should by all means be protected.' 

It is therefore clear that the Ixodes problem is solved by the 
direct application of the Code: Acarus reduvius Linnaeus, 1758 is its 
nominal type species, by monotypy, but the valid name for that 
species is Acarus ricinus Linnaeus, 1758, under Article 24a, by the 
First Reviser Action of Neumann, 1901. The present Direction can 
therefore be issued as a correction to Opinion 73 without the need 
for a further vote by the Commission. 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for names placed on 
Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Direction: 
Ixodes Latreille, 1795, Mag. encyclop. vol. 4, p. 18 
ricinus, Acarus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 615. 



282 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



CERTIFICATE 

I hereby certify that the present Direction No. 110 is issued in 
conformity with Article 24a of the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature (2nd edition, 1964) as a correction to Opinion 73 and 
that no exercise of its plenary powers by the Commission is 
involved. 

R.V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
29 April 1981 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 283 



EREMIAS WIEGMANN, 1834 (REPTILIA LACERTILIA): 

PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES BY USE 

OF THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)1172 

By the Secretary, International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature 

The present application involves the correction of an item in 
Opinion 92 {Smiths, misc. Colls vol. 73 (4), pp. 339-340). Eremias 
Wiegmann, 1834, Herpetol. Mexic. (1) p. 9, was one of nine reptile 
generic names then placed on the Official List. Lacerta velox Pallas, 
1771, Reise Russland\o\. 1, p. 457, was stated to be the type species 
of Eremias, but this was incorrect. In consequence, when 
preparations were made for the publication of the first instalment of 
the Official List of Generic Names in book form, entry no. 432 for 
Eremias was withdrawn, pending further enquiries. 

2. Wiegmann estabhshed Eremias with two included 
species, L. velox Pallas, 1771, and L. variabilis Pallas, 1811, 
Zoographia vol. 3, p. 31. He designated neither as type species. The 
first valid subsequent designation was made by Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. 
Rept., p. 21, and he chose L. variabilis. The genus is, however, 
currently treated as though L. velox was its type species (e.g. Smith, 
M. 1935, Fauna British India, Rept. Amph. vol. 2, 381), and in 1928 
Lantz {Bull. Mus. Georgie (4), p. 2 established a new subgenus 
Ommateremias with Lacerta arguta Pallas, 1773, Reise Russland 
vol. 2, p. 718 as type species. L. arguta is now considered the valid 
senior synonym of L. variabilis. 

3. Stability of nomenclature would thus clearly be best 
served if the Commission were to use its plenary powers to designate 
L. velox as type species of Eremias. It is accordingly asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of 
type species hitherto made for the nominal genus 
Eremias Wiegmann, 1834, and having done so, to 
designate Lacerta velox Pallas, 1771 as type species of 
that genus; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 (gender: feminine), type 
species, by designation under the plenary powers in 
(1) above, Lacerta velox Pallas, 1771 (Name No. 
432); 

(b) Ommateremias Lantz, 1928 (gender: feminine), 
type species, by original designation, Lacerta 
arguta Pallas, 1772; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in 



284 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



Zoology: 

(a) velox Pallas, 1771, as published in the binomen 
Lacerta velox (specific name of type species of 
Erem/fl^ Wiegmann, 1834); 

(b) arguta Pallas, 1773, as published in the binomen 
Lacerta arguta (specific name of type species of 
Ommateremias Laniz, 1928). 



COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL THAT CHROMIS CUVIER 

IN DESMAREST, 1814, AND GENERIC NAMES ENDING IN -CHROMIS 

BE RULED TO BE MASCULINE. Z.N.(S.)2329 

(see vol. 37, pp. 247-255) 

By W.I. Follett and Lillian J. Dempster {California Academy of Sciences, 
San Francisco, California 94118 U.S.A.) 

We support the request of Bailey, Robins & Greenwood that Chromis Cuvier 
in Desmarest, 1814, and all generic names ending in -chromis be ruled to be 
masculine. 

We question, however, the necessity of exercising the plenary powers in 
order to effect the result requested. As pointed out by Nye (1980, Bull. zool. Nom. 
vol. 37(3), p. 188), 'Under the Code, Article 30(a)i, the Commission can rule on the 
gender of a genus-group name without the use of the plenary powers'. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 285 



TYPUS SELLARDS, 1909 (INSECTA, 

PROTODONATA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER 

PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2359 

By Frank M. Carpenter {Museum of Comparative Zoology, 

Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138, U.S.A.) and 

Paul Whalley (Department of Entomology, British Museum 

(Natural History), London) 

The purpose of the present application is to ask the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its 
plenary powers to conserve the unjustified emendation, Typus 
Sellards, 1909, of the generic name Tupus Sellards, 1906, and to 
place the emended name on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology and the family name TYPIDAE Handlirsch, 1919, on the 
Official List of Family-Group names in zoology. 

2. The name Tupus Sellards, 1906 (Amer. J. Sci. (4), vol. 22, 
p. 249), with the type-species T. permianus by monotypy, was 
emended by Sellards in 1909 {Amer. J. Sci. (4) vol. 27 p. 151) to 
Typus. Since 1909, the name has consistently been spelled Typus in 
all zoological literature, with the single exception of a short article 
by E.B. Klots in 1944 {Amer. Mus. Novitates, no. 1260, p. 1), in 
which Tupus was used. 

3. The name Typus is the basis for the family name 
TYPIDAE Handlirsch, 1919 {Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien.,math. - 
nat. Klasse, vol. 96, p. 62) and has been cited in numerous textbooks 
and research papers, as an example of the extinct order Protodonata 
and as a representative of the possible ancestral stock of the 
Odonata. The genus is now known by species from the Upper 
Carboniferous and/or Permian of France, USSR, Kansas, Georgia, 
and Oklahoma. The spelling Typus has been used in the following 
works among many others:- 

Martynov, A.B. , 1938. Etudes sur Thistoire geologique et de phylogenie des ordres 

desinsectes(Pterygota). Trav. Inst. Paleont.. USSR. vol. 7, pp. 1-150. 
Fraser, F.C., 1957. A reclassification of the order Odonata. Handbook 12, Royal 

Zool. Soc. New South Wales, pp. 1-133. 
Crowson, R.A., etal. 1967. In Harland, W.B., et al. The Fossil Record. London 

(Geol. Soc). pp., 499-534. 
Asahina, S. , 1970. Animal taxonomy from a phylogenetic approach: Insecta, part I. 

Systematic Zoology (Japan), pp. 203-343. 
Rohdendorf, B.B., Rasnitzyn, A. P., et al. 1980. Historical development of the 

Insecta. Trans. Paleont., Inst. USSR, vol. 100, pp. 1-268. 
Tillyard, R.J., 1928. Evolution of the Order Odonata. Rec. Indian Mus. vol. 30, 

pp. 151-172. 
Handlirsch, A., 1937. Neue Untersuchungen iiber die fossilen Insekten. Ann. Nat. 

Hist. Mus. Wien. Bd. 48, pp. 1-140. 



286 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



Laurentiaux D., in Piveteau, 1953. Traite de Paleontologie vol. 3, pp. 397-526. 
Carpenter, F., 1960. Studies on North American Carboniferous Insects, 1. The 

Protodonata, Psyche, pp. 98-110. 
Rohdendorf, B.B., 1962. Fundamentals of Paleontology , Moscow pp. 1-560. 
Callahan, P., 1972. The Evolution of Insects, Holiday House NY, pp. 1-192. 
Tasch, P., 1973. Palaeobiology of the Invertebrata, Wiley, pp. 1-945. 

4. The International Commission is therefore requested: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to conserve the unjustified 
emendation Typus Sellards, 1909 by the suppression 
of Tupus Sellards 1906 for the purposes of the Law of 
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology; the generic name Typus Sellards, 1909 
(gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, 
Tupus [sic] permianus Sellards, 1906. 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology; the specific name permianus, 1906, as 
pubHshed in the binomen Tupus permianus (type- 
species of Typus Sellards, 1909). 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names 
in Zoology; the family name TYPIDAE Handlirsch, 
1919 (type-genus Tupus Sellards, 1906). 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name 
Tupus Sellards, 1906 (as suppressed under the 
plenary powers in (1) above). 

COMMENT ON PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF THE GENERIC NAME 
TYPUS SELLARDS, 1909 (INSECTA, PROTODONATA). Z.N.(S.) 2359 

By D.L.F. Sealy (Dept. of Palaeontology, British Museum 
(Natural History), London) 

I wish to oppose the proposed conservation (Bull. zool. Nom. 37(4), p. 194) 
of the genus-group name Typus Sellards 1909 on two grounds, one commonplace 
and one possibly unique. Neither is strictly entomological. 

1. The name Typus should not be conserved because Tupus Sellards, 1906 
has priority, was validly proposed, is not preoccupied and is objectively 
synonymous. There is no evidence in the original 1906 publication of Sellards of a 
typographical error as the name is used a number of times in the paper. A validly 
proposed genus-group name cannot be changed, even by its original author, on 
grounds of 'inappropriateness' or other second thoughts, unless preoccupied {Int. 
Code Art. 18a, 19). The name Tupus is a transliteration into Latin of the Greek 
word xvKoc,, presumably meaning, in this case, an outline or impression. While the 
Code (Appendix B) recommends upsilon be transliterated as y, this letter was not 
used in classical Latin until the 1st Century BC. Can one argue that Typus is a more 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 287 



appropriate transliteration? That this subsequent emendation should have been 
widely used, I believe in error, by many authors since 1909 is beside the point. 
Whalley (1980) has now demonstrated the error, at my instigation, and Sellards' 
original spelling Tupus should, I submit, be allowed to stand. 

2. Even if otherwise allowable, however, I believe the name Typiis to be 
objectionable on other, possibly unique, grounds, in that the word is a technical 
term in zoological nomenclature. In German and other languages typus means a 
type specimen (or species). Every effort should, in my view, be made to avoid 
'homonymy' between technical terms in zoological taxonomy and genus-group 
names. Although there is no ruling on the subject, I wonder what the Commission's 
attitude would be if someone were so ill-advised as to propose Genus as a genus- 
group name in Zoology. It would not be long, I suspect, before its suppression as 
undesirable was achieved! I submit that Typus is in the same category, and the 
opportunity to reject it, which would not require application of the plenary powers, 
should now be taken. It is significant, perhaps, that Appendix D, para. 8 of the 
Code recommends that the words typus and typicus should not be used as new 
names, as they are liable to cause confusion. 

I therefore request the Commission to place the genus-group name Typus 
Sellards, 1909 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology, and to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-group 
names in Zoology the name TYPIDAE Handlirsch, 1919. 

REFERENCE 

WHALLEY. P.E.S., 1980. Bull. Br. Mus. (nat. Hist.), (Geol.), vol. 34 (4), 
pp. 285-287. 



288 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



CAPSUS ATER JAKOVLEV, 1889 AND LYGAEUS 
QUADRIPUNCTATUS FABRICIUS, 1794 (INSECTA, 

HEMIPTERA, HETEROPTERA): PROPOSED 
NOMENCLATURAL VALIDATION. Z.N.(S.) 2148 

By I.M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, 
Leningrad 199164, USSR) 

Introduction 
Under Article 59b(i) of the Code, a junior secondary 
homonym replaced before 1961 cannot be used as a valid name 
(except under certain conditions and with the Commission's 
approval). However, some cases occur in which the replacement 
name itself cannot be used as a vaHd name. Two such cases are 
discussed below. In each of these, because the species concerned are 
now placed in different genera, I think that nomenclatural 
validation of the junior secondary homonyms provides the best 
solution: in each case, that is the oldest available name for the 
species in question. 

Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 

2. Deraeocoris ater (Jakovlev, 1889), originally described as 
Capsus ater (Horae Soc. entomol. Rossicae, vol. 24, p. 344; type 
locality, Irkutsk , Siberia) , is a junior secondary homonym of Capsus 
ater (Linnaeus, 1758), originally described as Cimex ater (Syst. Nat. 
ed. 10, p. 447). Cimex ater was designated as type species of Capsus 
Fabricius, 1803, by the use of the plenary powers in Opinion 298 
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Norn. vol. 8, pp. 199-208, 1954). 

3. Two varieties, D. ater var. limbicollis Renter, 1901 
{Ofvers.finsk. vet. Soc. Forhandl. vol. 43, p. 167) from 'Amurland', 
and D. atervar. amplus Horvath, 1905, Ann. Mus. Nat. Hung. vol. 
3, p. 420) from Tokyo, Japan, were described before Kiritshenko 
(1914, Russ. entomol. Obozr. , vol. 13, p. 483) noticed the secondary 
homonymy and proposed the replacement name Deraeocoris 
sibiricus for the junior secondary homonym. 

4. Subsequent authors have not followed a consistent usage. 
The name D. ater Jakovlev was used by Matsumura, 1930, Esaki, 
1932, 1952, Lindberg, 1934, Miyamoto, 1957, 1961, KuHk, 1965a, 
1965b, and Capsus ater by Matsumura, 1931. The name D. sibiricus 
Kiritshenko was used by Hsiao, 1942, Stichel, 1956-1958, 
Tsherepanov & Kiritshenko, 1962 and Josifov & Kerzhner, 1972. In 
the world catalogue of MIRIDAE (Carvalho, 1957) the species 
wrongly appeared under two names — D. ater Jakovlev, and D. 
sibiricus Kiritshenko (= ater Jak.). The Japanese population is 
named D. amplus Horvath by Miyamoto, 1965, who considers it a 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 289 



distinct species, though in my opinion the possibility that it is a 
subspecies cannot be excluded. 

5. Under the Code, (1) the specific name flfer Jakovlev, 1889 
cannot be used because a new replacement name sibiricus 
Kiritshenko, 1914, was proposed before 1961 and used by some 
zoologists; (2) this replacement name cannot be used as the valid 
name, because two older available names exist (Article 45e(i)): 
limbicollis Renter, 1901, and amplus Horvath, 1905. Of these, the 
former has never been used as a valid name since its publication and 
may indeed denote an infrasubspecific form (a colour-variant); the 
latter may represent either a subspecies or a distinct species; 
because the latter possibility exists, amplus ought not to be adopted 
in place of ater. 

6. The plenary powers must therefore be used to give 
nomenclatural validity either to ater Jakovlev or to sibiricus 
Kiritshenko. The latter is less preferable because it would oblige 
those who believe that amplus Horvath denotes a subspecies to give 
the junior name sibiricus precedence over it. The fact that ater 
Jakovlev is the oldest of all the names involved means that its 
validation would combine the simplest nomenclatural solution 
(priority) with the highest degree of freedom for different 
taxonomic views. It is therefore recommended here. 

Lygaeus quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794 

7. Wagner, 1938, 1943, has shown that Adelphocoris 
annulicornis (R. Sahlberg, 1848) is conspecific with A. 
quadripunctatus (Fabricius, 1794). Later, he regarded this species as 
polytypic ('Rassenkreis'), with four subspecies in Europe, two of 
which are widely distributed — A. q. quadripunctatus in central 
Europe and A. q. annulicornis in northern Europe, and two are 
local central European forms. The taxonomy of this difficult 
complex needs further work, but the following names are involved 
in the discussion of nomenclature below. 

8. Lygaeus quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794, Entomol. Syst. 
vol. 4, p. 172 (described from 'Germania', type locality not 
subsequently restricted) was known from 1861 to 1896 in the 
combination Calocoris quadripunctatus. Its name was then a junior 
secondary homonym of Cimex quadripunctatus Villers, 1789, Linn. 
Entomol. p. 535, which was transferred to the genus Calocoris in 
1888, is a junior primary homonym of Cimex quadripunctatus 
Miiller, 1766 and is now considered a junior synonym of Calocoris 
striatellus (Fabricius, 1794) (see Wagner, 1958, Carvalho, 1959 and 
Kerzhner, 1970 for details). 

9. Capsus annulicornis R. Sahlberg, 1848, Monogr. Geocor. 
Fenn., p. 100 (type locality Ylane, Finland), is a junior primary 



290 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



homonym of Capsus anniilicornis Herrich-Schaeffer, 1835, 
Nomenclator Entomol. vol. 1, p. 51. This latter name is generally 
considered a nomen dubium, but in my opinion it is very probably a 
junior synonym of Orthops campestris (Linnaeus, 1758), new 
synonymy. 

10. Adelphocoris annulicornis R. Sahlberg var. confluens 
Reuter, 1896, Hem. Gymn. Eur. vol. 5, pp. 225, 379 was described 
without data on distribution. In the same work the distribution of ^4. 
annulicornis was given as Finland, Sweden and Siberia, so that the 
syntypes of var. confluens may have come from any of these 
countries. 

11. Adelphocoris quadripunctatus var. innotata Reuter, 
1906, Annuar. Mus. Zool. Acad. Sci. St. Petersburg, vol. 10, p. 20, 
was described from 'Austria' and several localities in S.E. China 
(Szechuan). No lectotype has yet been designated. 

12. Adelphocoris quadripunctatus annulatus Carvalho, 
1959, Arq. Mus. nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 48, p. 18, is a new 
replacement name for A. annulicornis (R. Sahlberg). 

13. Wagner, 1958, treated quadripunctatus (Fabricius) as an 
invalid junior secondary homonym and used annulicornis as the 
valid name . He overlooked the fact that the latter is a junior primary 
homonym. At the same time, for A. quadripunctatus 
quadripunctatus (Fabricius) he accepted A. annulicornis innotatus 
Reuter, and this was followed by most authors. 

14. Carvalho, 1959, noted that annulicornis (R. Sahlberg) 
was a junior primary homonym, but in spite of a previously 
published available replacement name (confluens Reuter), 
proposed a new replacement name annulatus. However, this was 
overlooked by all later authors. 

1 5 . The situation with the name of this species is therefore as 
follows: 

(a) The name quadripunctatus (Fabricius) cannot be 
used as its valid name because it is a junior 
secondary homonym for which a replacement 
name — annulicornis (R. Sahlberg) — was 
introduced before 1961; 

(b) that replacement name cannot be used because it is 
a junior primary homonym; 

(c) the oldest nomenclaturally valid name, confluens 
Reuter, has been rarely used, and with 
infrasubspecific rank for a colour-variety; 

(d) the next name, innotatus Reuter, is a junior 
synonym of confluens used (as a subspecific name) 
only in recent years and by a few authors. 

16. The following references give proof of the use of 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 291 



quadripunctatus after Wagner's 1958 publication: Josifov & 
Kerzhner, 1972, Ann. zool. Warszawa, vol. 29, p. 166; Miyamoto, 
1974, Rostria, vol. 23, p. 121; Kershner, 1978, Trudy biol.-pochv. 
Inst. Vladivostok, vol. 50, p. 42; Vinokurov, 1979, Heteroptera of 
Yakutia (in Russian), p. 183. This is not an exhaustive list. Many 
could be added from the '60s. 

17. The International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature is accordingly asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the following 
specific names are nomenclaturally valid: 

(a) ater Jakovlev, 1889, as published in the bino- 
men Capsus ater; 

(b) quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794, as published 
in the binomen Lygaeus quadripunctatus; 

(2) to place the above-mentioned specific names on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

REFERENCES 

CARVALHO, J. CM. 1957. Arq. Mus. nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 44, pp. 1-158. 

1959. Arq. Mus. nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 48, pp. 1-384. 

ESAKI, T. 1932. [Heteroptera] in Esaki et al., Iconogr. Ins. Japan., ed. 1 (in 

Japanese). 

1952. [Heteroptera] in Esaki et al., Iconogr. Ins. Japon., ed. 2. 

HSIAO, T.Y. 1942. Iowa State Coll. J. ScL, vol. 16(2). pp. 241-269. 

JOSIFOV, M. & KERZHNER, I.M. 1972. Ann. Zool. Warszawa, vol. 29(6), pp. 

147-180. 
KERZHNER, I.M. 1970. Acta entomol. Mus. nat. Pragae, vol. 38, pp. 141-145. 
KULIK, S.A. 1965a. Acta entomol. faun. Mus. nat. Pragae, vol. 11(98), pp. 39-70 

(in Russian with German summary). 

1965b. Izv. Irkutsk, sel'skokhoz. Inst., vol. 25, pp. 157-188 (in Russian) 

LINDBERG, H. 1934. Notulae entomol. Helsinki, vol. 14, pp. 1-23, pi. 1. 
MATSUMURA, S. 1930. The illustrated thousand insects of Japan, vol. 1, 

Rhynchota, Tokyo (in Japanese and English). 
1931. 6000 illustrated insects of Japan- Empire, Tokyo (in Japanese and 

English). 
MIYAMOTO, S. 1957. Sieboldia, Fukuoka, vol. 2(1), pp. 69-82. 

1961. Sieboldia, Fukuoka, vol. 2(4), pp. 197-259, pis. 20-49. 

1965. Iconogr. Ins. Japon. Col. nat. edita, vol. 3, Tokyo, pp. 75-84, 89-108, 

pis. 38-44, 45-54. 
STICHEL, W. 1956-1958. Illustrierte Bestimmungstabelle derWanzen, II,Europa, 

vol. 2, Berlin-Hermsdorf, pp. 190-907. 
TSHEREPANOV, A.I. & KIRITSHENKO, A.N. 1962. Trudy biol. Inst, sibir. 

otd. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Novosibirsk, vol. 8, pp. 5-32 (in Russian). 
WAGNER, E. 1938. Verhandl. Ver. naturw. Heimatforsch. Hamburg, vol. 26, 

pp. 16-20. 

1943. in Guide, i.,Die Wanzen Mitteleuropas, IXTeil, Frankfurt, pp. 1-160. 

1958. Deutsche entomol. Zeitschr., N.F. vol. 5(1-2), pp. 86-90. 



292 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



BYRRHUS SEMISTRIATUS FABRICIUS, 1794 
(INSECTA, COLEOPTERA, BYRRHIDAE): 
PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.) 2317 

By Maciej Mroczkowski {Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy 
of Sciences, Warszawa, Poland) 

1. A.G. Olivier, 1790, no. 13, p. 9, described from the 
surroundings of Paris a species called Byrrhus picipes. Since the 
description the name picipes has been used in systematic works only 
by J.F. Stephens, 1830, p. 140, and by G. Steffahny, 1843, p. 37. 
W.F. Erichson, 1847, p. 494, placed Byrrhus picipes Oliv. in the 
synonymy of Simplocaria semistriata (Fabr., 1794). 

2. J.G. Kugelann, 1792, p. 485, described from Konigsberg 
(now Kaliningrad) a species called Byrrhus rufipes. Since the 
description the name rufipes has not been used in systematic works. 

3. J.G. Fabricius, 1794, p. 437, described from 'Germania' a 
species called Byrrhus semistriatus . The name semistriatus (in the 
combination Simplocaria semistriata) has been used by a number of 
authors in many systematic works and in all works issued after 
Erichson's monograph (1847). Simplocaria semistriata (Fabr.) is a 
common species, distributed in North and Central Europe. The 
nominal species semistriata is the type species of the genus 
Simplocaria Stephens, 1829, p. 9, by subsequent designation by 
Jacquelin du Val, 1859, p. 267. 

4. The World Catalogue (Dalla Torre, 1911, p. 14), as well 
as previous European catalogues, listed both picipes Oliv. and 
rufipes Kugel. as synonyms oi semistriata . 

5. As the name semistriata (in the combination Simplocaria 
semistriata) has been in continuous use since 1847, the application of 
the Law of Priority would disrupt stability and cause confusion. 
Therefore the Commission is requested to take the following 
actions: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific 
name semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, as published in 
the binomen Byrrhus semistriatus, is to be given 
nomenclatural precedence over both the specific 
names picipes Ohvier, 1790, as published in the 
binomen Byrrhus picipes, and rufipes Kugelann, 
1792, as published in the binomen Byrrhus rufipes, 
by anyone who considers that these three names, or 
any two of them, denote the same taxon; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology the generic name Simplocaria Stephens, 
1829 (gender: feminine), type species, by 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 293 



subsequent designation by Jacquelin du Val, 1859, 
Byrrhus semistriatus Fabricius, 1794; 
(3) to place the following names on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) semistriatus Fabricius, 1794, as published in the 
binomen Byrrhus semistriatus, with an 
endorsement that it is to be given 
nomenclatural precedence over both Byrrhus 
picipes Olivier, 1790, and Byrrhus rufipes 
Kugelann, 1792, by anyone who considers that 
all three names, or any two of them, apply to 
the same taxon; 

(b) picipes Olivier, 1790, as published in the 
binomen Byrrhus picipes, with an endorsement 
that it is not to be given nomenclatural 
precedence over Byrrhus semistriatus 
Fabricius, 1794, by anyone who considers that 
both names apply to the same taxon; 

(c) rufipes Kugelann, 1792, as published in the 
binomen Byrrhus rufipes, with an endorsement 
that it is not to be given nomenclatural 
precedence over Byrrhus semistriatus 
Fabricius, 1794, by anyone who considers that 
both names apply to the same taxon. 

REFERENCES 

DALLA TORRE, K.W. von, 1911. Nosodendridae, Byrrhidae, Dermestidae. In: 

^Coleopterorum Catalogus\ pars 33. Berlin, 96pp. 
ERICHSON, W.F., 1847. Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands. Coleoptera, 

3.1,3. Berlin, pp. 481-800. 
FABRICIUS, J. Ch., 1794. Entomologia systematica, vol. 4. Hafniae, VIII + 

478pp. 
JACQUELIN DU VAL, P.N.C., 1859. Genera des Coleopteres d'Europe (etc.), 

vol. 2, (4), pp. 169-288 + Catal. 109-124, pis. 43-67. Paris. 
KUGELANN, J.G., 1792. Verzeichniss der in einigen Gegenden Preussens bis 

jetzt entdeckten Kafer-Arten nebst kurzen Nachrichten von denselben. 

Neuestes Mag. Liebhaber Entomol. vol. 1, (2^), pp. 252-306, 477-512. 
OLIVIER, AG., 1790. Entomologie, ou Histoire Naturelle des Insectes (etc.), 

Coleopteres. Vol. 2, Nos. 9-34. Paris. 
STEFFAHNY, G., 1843. Tentamen monographiae generis Byrrhi. Z. Entomol. 

(German), Leipzig, vol. 4, pp. 1^2. 
STEPHENS, J.F., 1829. The nomenclature of British Insects. IV + 68pp. London. 
1830. Illustrations of British Entomology (etc.). Mandibulata,\o\. 3, 379 pp. , 

pis. 16-19. London. 



294 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



AEOLIDIELLA BERGH, 1867 (GASTROPODA, 

OPISTHOBRANCHIA): PROPOSALS TO CLARIFY THE 

TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS. Z.N.(S.) 1986 

By Gregory H. Brown {Zoology Department, 
University of Bristol, U.K.) 

The purpose of the present appUcation is to clarify the type 
species of the genus Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (Vidensk. Meddr. 
Dansk Naturh. Foren., p. 99) by the suppression under the plenary 
powers of the nomen dubium Eolida soemmerringii F.S. Leuckart, 
1828 {Breves Anim., p. 16) and the designation of a new type species 
for the genus. 

2. In Opinion 780, the generic name Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 
was placed on the Official List as name number 1720, and its type 
species Eolida soemmerringii F.S. Leuckart, 1828, selected by 
Suter, 1913 {Man. N.Z. Moll., p. 581) was entered on the Official 
List of Specific Names as name number 2152. 

3. However, Leuckart's specimens are lost and doubts have 
been expressed about the true identity of E. soemmerringii 
Leuckart. Bergh in 1864 {Anatomiske Bidrag til Kundskaben om 
Aeolidierne, p. 203) described the anatomy of a specimen from the 
type locality, Cette (Sete) in France, which he identified as Aeolida 
soemmeringii Leuckart (an incorrect spelling used consistently by 
Bergh and some subsequent authors). Bergh in 1867 created the 
genus Aeolidiella to accommodate the animal he had investigated in 
1864 but in 1882 {Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 1882, p. 8) he decided 
that it was in fact a new species and that Leuckart's species Eolida 
soemmerringii, was a synonym oi Amphorina caerulea (Montagu). 
This latter species was originally described under the binomen Doris 
caerulea Montagu, 1804 {Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., vol. 7, p. 78) 
and, in Opinion 777 {Bull. zool. Norn. vol. 23, pp. 95-97, 1966), was 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names as name number 2146 
and as the type species of Trinchesia Ihering, 1879 {Zool. Anz., vol. 
2, p. 137). Thus Bergh in 1882, believing that his new genus 
Aeolidiella had been founded on a misidentified specimen, created 
what he thought would be acceptable as a new specific name: 
Aeolidiella soemmeringii Bergh (non Leuckart). 

4. In practice A. soemmeringii Bergh, 1882 non Leuckart 
has been ignored by virtually all subsequent authors, while Eolida 
soemmerringii F.S. Leuckart, 1828 has been consistently quoted as 
the type species of the genus. Because Leuckart's specimens are lost 
and Bergh's specimen was totally destroyed during dissection, it is 
impossible to ascertain: 

(i) whether Eolida soemmerringii Leuckart is a synonym of 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 295 



Doris caerulea Montagu, or 
(ii) whether either Leuckart's or Bergh's specimens are 
referable to any of the present recognised species of 
Aeolidiella. The only certainty is that Bergh's anatomical 
description indicates that his specimen belonged to the 
genus Aeolidiella as generally employed by authors in 
recent years throughout the world. 
It is therefore desirable to suppress both nominal species E. 

soemmerringii Leuckart and A. soemmeringii Bergh while 

designating a new type species for the genus. 

5. In 1969, Tardy {Bull. Inst. Oceanog. Monaco, vol. 68, p. 
34) suggested that A. soemmeringii 'Leuckart' Bergh, 1864 non 
Leuckart, 1828 may be a synonym oi Aeolidiella alderi {Cocks, 1852, 
Naturalist, vol. 2, p. 1) and Lemche (pers. comm.) was convinced 
that such a synonymy was justified. Therefore, a relevant solution 
would involve the designation of ^4. alderi (Cocks, 1852) as a new 
type species for the genus. 

6. Cocks (1852) based his type description of A. alderi on 
several specimens collected near Falmouth, England, but only one 
of Cocks' specimens sent to Alder has been preserved, and this is in 
the collections of the British Museum (Natural History). There is no 
reason to assume that this animal is the holotype or even a syntype, 
and it is badly damaged, the radula and some of the visceral organs 
having been removed. I therefore propose to select an intact 
specimen, 29 mm in length alive and collected by Mr. D.R. Seaward 
at Portland, Dorset on 2nd March, 1980 to be designated as the 
neotype of Eolis alderi Cocks, 1852. This specimen is deposited in 
the British Museum (Natural History), No. 198093. 

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature is accordingly asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to set aside all designations of type species for 
the nominal genus Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867, 
made prior to the ruling here requested, and 
having done so, to designate Eolis alderi 
Cocks, 1852 to be the type species of that 
genus; 

(b) to suppress the following specific names for the 
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for 
those of the Law of Homonymy: 

(i) soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828, as 
published in the binomen Eolida 
soemmerringii; 

(ii) soemmeringii Bergh, 1882, as published 
in the binomen Aeolidiella soemmeringii; 



296 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



(2) to amend entry no. 1720 on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology to read: 'Aeolidiella 
Bergh, 1867 (gender: feminine), type species, by 
designation under the plenary powers, Eolis alderi 
Cocks, 1852; 

(3) to place the specific name alderi Cocks, 1852, as 
published in the binomen Eolis alderi (specific name 
of type species of Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867) on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; 

(4) to delete entry no. 2152 from the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology; 

(5) to place the following specific names on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828, as published in 
the binomen Eolida soemmerringii, and as 
suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(l)(b)(i) above; 

(b) soemmeringii Bergh, 1882, as published in the 
binomen Aeolidiella soemmeringii, and as 
suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(l)(>)(ii) above. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 297 



ALPHEUS LOTTINI GVERIN, 1829 (CRUSTACEA, 
DECAPODA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)2370 

By Albert R. & Dora M. Banner {Hawaii Institute of Marine 
Biology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96744, U.S.A.) 

In 1979 Holthuis, pp. 7-10, proposed the substitution of the 
name Alpheus sublucanus (Forskal, 1775) for the currently used 
Alpheus lottini Guerin, 1829. In his publication Holthuis gives a 
thorough and excellent discussion of the various names used for this 
species, here given in rapid review in chronological order of general 
usage: 

Alpheus laevis Randall, 1839. This was the most commonly 
used name for the species in the 19th century. 

Alpheus ventrosus Milne Edwards, 1837. While Coutiere in 
1897, p. 195, pointed out that this species was the same asv4. laevis, 
he continued to use Randall's name until 1905 (p. 882), when he 
stated he had re-examined the 'types' of Milne Edwards and had no 
doubt that the two nominal species were identical. Only a few 
workers used Randall's name after Coutiere's 1905 publication 
became available, although it persisted in the literature until 1921 
(Urita, vol. 33. p.216). 

Alpheus lottini Guerin, 1829. (The date given is of the 
publication of the plates — see Holthuis 1961, p. 168 — while the 
description was published in 1838). Kingsley, 1882, p. 113, after the 
examination of the types of ^4. lottini and A. laevis stated that only 
one species was involved and that /4. lottini was the senior synonym. 
Onlv Sharp in 1893, p. 113, followed Kingsley's lead until Holthuis 
cited him in 1958 (p. 22). 

However, Stebbing in South Africa did revive A. lottini, 
apparently independently, in 1915, p. 82, and 1919, p. 123, and he 
was followed by Barnard, 1950, p. 748 and Macnae & Kalk (first ed. , 
1958, not seen; second ed., 1969, p. 37 ff.) also from South Africa. 
Banner, 1958, p. 166 (published in April) suggested that the name 
A. lottini be suppressed as a nomen oblitum. Holthuis, 1958, p. 22 
(published in September) reviewed the history of the names used for 
the species and firmly supported the use of Guerin's name. Banner 
& Banner, 1964. p. 89, conceded that the 'fifty-year rule' (Article 
23b of the 1961 code) precluded the retention of the name A. 
ventrosus. Subsequently, A. lottini was used more and more 
extensively (see listings, paragraphs 6 and 7). 

Alpheus sublucanus (Forskal, 1775). Forskal's name, 
published posthumously, was almost entirely ignored by all 
carcinologists for two centuries. Holthuis (1979, loc. cit.) has 
suggested that the name was not used by those working with the 



298 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



Indo-Pacific fauna as it was based almost entirely upon color notes 
taken in the field and that by the time specimens were returned to 
Europe in preservative, the distinctive coloration would have faded 
(Guerin reported that his type for A. lottini was of 'jaune verdatre 
dans I'alkoor). There is no indication that any type specimens were 
ever brought back by the ill-fated expedition to 'Arabia Felix'. 
Hohhuis, however, while collecting in 1962 in the southern portion 
of the Red Sea with Forskal's colour description before him, found 
that the species then known as A. lottini agreed with Forskal's terse 
description. He therefore raised Forskal's name as the senior 
synonym to replace A. lottini (loc. cit.). 

Dr. Holthuis has kindly listed for us all the uses of sublucanus 
that he knows of in the literature: 
HERBST, 1792. Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der Krabben und 

Krebse (Berlin and Stralsund), vol. 2 (2), pp. 66-67. 
FISHELSON, 1971. Mar. Biol, vol. 10(2), p. 121 ff. (coral reef 

ecology). 
MERGNER & SCHUHMACHER, 1974 (publ. Dec, 1974). 

Helgoldnder wiss. Meeresunters, vol. 26(34), pp. 238-356, tab. 

6, 13 (coral reef ecology). 
HOLTHUIS, 1980. FAO Fish. Synop. (125) Vol. 1, pp. 122-123 

(distribution, listing of synonyms, etc. , together with remarks 

on the use of the name as a senior synonym). 

The use by Fishelson of Forskal's name was in violation of the 
'fifty-year rule' then in force. The Mergner & Schuhmacher article 
was published after the revision of Article 23 had appeared (in 
August, 1974) so it was not in violation; however, that article merely 
carried Forskal's name in two extensive faunal lists without 
comment on the change. Dr. Holthuis has stated that he applied the 
names used by Dr. Fishelson (personal communication) while 
Mergner & Schuhmacher specifically acknowledge his help. Thus, 
while the name A. sublucanus has appeared four other times in the 
literature since 1970, all uses were those of Dr. Holthuis and he did 
not explain the synonymy oiA. sublucanus until late 1979. 

2. The species has also been placed under two different 
generic names and been given three different trivial names. These 
are recorded and accepted synonyms and do not affect this 
discussion. 

3. Forskal, as a student of Linnaeus, used the linnaean genus 
Cancer for this species, but he did state that the animal was 
'macrourus\ Beyond that he gave almost no morphological details 
that would separate this species from other genera and families of 
shrimp-like decapods. He did mention 'antice spina oculis longiore' 
but made no mention of the characteristic orbital hoods that are 
found in all species of the genus Alpheus; he also mentioned that the 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 299 



left chela was larger — a type of asymmetry that is also found in 
unrelated shrimps, as in the PONTONIINAE. 

4. The identification by Holthuis therefore rests largely upon 
the colours described by Forskal. Forskal stated that the shrimp was 
""incarnatus [usually translated as flesh-coloured or pink], dorso 
nigro"'; he also specified "'Antennae nigrae... Chelae... dorso nigrae, 
lateribus fuscopunctatae. . . " In the literally hundreds of specimens of 
this species that we have collected through the breadth of the Indo- 
Pacific we have found the colour to be quite variable. The ground 
colour is usually an orange-red of various degrees of intensity and 
the lateral portions of the body and the chelae usually bear spots of 
deeper red to red-brown. In some geographical areas individuals 
may bear a mid-dorsal longitudinal stripe of the colour of the 
mottling or even darker, at times with the red-brown approaching 
blackness. We are currently publishing in a paper on the alpheids of 
the Red Sea some colour notes on A. sublucanus-lottini made by 
Dr. Holthuis on a specimen he collected from the coral Stylophora 
in the Dahlak Archipelago in which he states the general colour was 
'orange-brown... [with a] very dark brown longitudinal band... The 
sides of the body are a much paler brown with an orange tinge. The 
tailfan is dark brown... The antennular and antennal peduncles are 
brown... The fingers of the large chela are reddish brown, the palm 
is lighter reddish brown beneath; the upper half... shows dark 
(blackish) spots...' While Dr. Holthuis is describing a darker 
specimen than we usually have seen, and a lighter specimen than 
that which Forskal was attempting to describe, we concede his 
description is close enough to that of Forskal to support his 
contention that Forskal was indeed describing the species now 
known as A . lottini. 

5. However, the question is not whether the specimen seen 
and named by Forskal was the species now known as Alpheus lottini, 
but whether the revival of Forskal's name to replace that of Guerin 
follows the present interpretation of the Law of Priority as stated in 
Article 23, section (a-b) of the present rules. Holthuis contends that 
the use of ^4. sublucaniis 'might even do away with the controversy 
of ventrosus-lottim\ We contend that the controversy is now over 
and that the name A. lottini is now stabilized. 

6. Holthuis states that A. ventrosus was 'seriously challenged 
by A. lottini after 1955'. Our bibliography indicates that the serious 
challenge occurred only with the publication of Holthuis' paper in 
September, 1958, and we find only five authors using the name A. 
ventrosus after that date: 

BANNER, 1959. Pacific Sci., vol. 13, p. 141 (distribution and colour notes; paper 

in press when Holthuis" 1958 paper was received). 
AL-KHOLY, 1961. Publ. mar. biol. Sta. Al-Ghardaqa, no. 11, pp. 71-86 (not 

seen). 



300 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



JOHNSON, 1962. Bull. nam. Mus. St. Singapore, vol. 30, p. 51 (distribution). 

PATTON, 1966. Crustaceana, vol. 10, p. 282 (commensalism). 

McNeill, 1968. 5c/. Repts. G. Barrier Reef Exped., vol. 7, p. 15 (distribution). 

7, Holthuis further states that 'between 1955 and 1975 I 
counted 17 uses of ^. lottini and 10 of A. ventrosus\ We, using the 
1958 date of his publication, find 18 authors in 26 separate 
publications have used A. lottini: 

FOURMANOIR, 1958. Nat. Malgache, vol. 10, p. 119 (distribution). 
CHACE, 1962. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus., vol. 113, p. 608 (distribution). 
TIWARI. 1963, Ann. Fac. Sci., Saigon, 1963, p. 285 (distribution). 
BANNER & BANNER, 1964. Pacif. Sci., vol. 18, p. 38 (acceptance of name 
change and distribution). 

1966. Siam Soc. Monogr., no.. 3, p. 91 (redescription and distribution). 

1967. Bishop Mus. Occ. Pap. vol. 23, p. 267 (distribution). 

1968. Micronesica, vol. 4, p. 281 (distribution). 

MACNAE & KALK, 1969. A natural history of Inhaca Island, Mogambique (2nd 

ed.,), pp. 37 ff. (distribution). 
KENSLEY, 1970. Ann. S. Afr. Mus., vol. 57, p. 105 (distribution). 
BANNER, 1970. Hawaii Institute Geophysics 70-23 160 (distribution). 
CASTRO, 1971. Pacif Sci., vol. 25, p. 400 (commensalism). 
GARTH, 1974. J. mar. biol. Ass. India, vol. 15, p. 198 ff. (distribution). 
BRUCE, 1975. Endeavour, vol. 4(121), p. 25 (colour notes). 
ABELE, 1974. Smithson, Contrib. Zool., no. 176, p. 72 (vol. for 1975) 

(distribution). 

& PATTON, 1976. Journ. Biogeogr., vol. 3, p. 37 (distribution). 

BRUCE, 1976. Micronesica, vol. 12, p. 92 (commensalism). 

GLYNN, 1976. Ecolog. Monogr. vol. 46, p. 443 (ecology). 

LASSIG, 1977. Proc. 3rd Intern. Coral Reef Symp. vol. 1, p. 569 (commensalism). 

1977. Mar. Biol., vol. 42, p. 86 ff. (commensalism). 

BANNER & BANNER, 1977. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.), vol. 31. p. 282 (on 

the identity oiA. thetis White, a nomen nudum). 

1978. Micronesica, vol. 14, p. 224 (distribution). 

1980. Pacif Sci., vol. 33, p. 26 (distribution). 

1981. Rec. Aust. Mus. [In press] (redescription and distribution). 

PEYROT-CLAUSADE, 1977. Faune cavitaire mobile des platiers... 

(Madagascar). These Universite d'Aix-Marseilie 2 pour ... Docteur des 

Sciences Naturelles (distribution and coral reef ecology). 
RIBES, 1978. La Macrofaune vagile associee a la partie vivante des 

scleractiniares... (Ocean Indien). These de Doctorat du 3™ cycle en 

Oceanologie, Universite Aix-Marseille 2 (distribution and coral reef 

ecology). 
THOMASSIN, 1978. Peuplements des sediments coralliens dans la region de Tulear 

(S.O. Madagascar)... dans le contexte cotiere Indo-Pacifique. These Dr. 

Sciences Universite d' Aix-Marseille 2 Archiv. Original CNRS (distribution 

and coral reef ecology). 
(We do not believe these French theses constitute publications 
under Articles 7, 8 and 9 under the International Code; they are 
offered only as examples of the current usage of the binomen 
Alpheus lottini.). 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 301 



8. This species is not a rare and insignificant species icnown 
only to the specialists in the identification of macrurous decapod 
crustaceans. It is one of the larger of the alpheid shrimps, 
conspicuously coloured, abundant in living heads of coral of certain 
species of the family POCILLOPORIDAE wherever they are 
found in the coral reef environment. It not only reaches across the 
entire breadth of the Indo-Pacific faunal realm from the Red Sea to 
eastern Polynesia, but it has also jumped the 'eastern Pacific 
barrier', being reported from the Gulf of California to the 
Galapagos Islands. To give some idea of the abundance and 
collectability of this species, we are reporting on 118 specimens 
made in 57 collections from Australia, found in all Australian 
museums that have collections from the tropics (Banner & Banner, 
1981, in press). The annotations on the bibliography above attest 
that the investigators of commensal relationships and those making 
broad studies on coral reef ecology have published upon this 
species. As is shown in paragraph 6, even those specializing in the 
nomenclature of the decapod crustaceans may lag behind in 
accepted changes in nomenclature by ten years. Those who are not 
specialists but are interested in other aspects of the coral reef 
problem will undoubtedly lag even more. The change from the 
presently accepted name will produce a decade or more of 
unnecessary confusion in the literature. 

9. As an example of the use of the plenary powers by the 
Commission within the family ALPHEIDAE, may we cite Opinion 
334, 1955, wherein the name Crangon Weber, 1795 was suppressed 
and the junior synonym Alpheiis Fabricius, 1798 was placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. This was despite the 
clear priority of Weber's publication and despite the utilization of 
Weber's name by almost all American and Australian carcinologists 
following M.J. Rathbun's revival of the senior synonym in 1904 (p. 
170). Although we then protested the change on the basis of priority 
(1951, p. 74). we now commend this action for promoting stability 
and universality. 

10. We therefore request that the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature: 

(1) use its plenary power vested in Article 79 to suppress the 
specific name sublucanus as published under Forskal's 
authorship in 1775 as Cancer sublucanus, a specific name 
virtually unused from its time of publication until 1979, 
for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those 
of the Law of Homonymy; 

(2) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the 
specific name lottini Guerin, 1829, as published in the 
binomen Alpheus lottini; 



302 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



(3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology the name sublucanus Forskal, 
1775, as pubhshed in the binomen Cancer sublucanus . 

REFERENCES 
(Excluding those in chronological lists in paragraphs 1 , 6 and 7) 

BANNER, A.H., 1951. On Dr. L.B. Holthuis' proposals relating to the generic 

names "Crangon" Weber, 1795, and "Crangon" Fabricius, 1798. Bull. 

zool. Nomencl., vol. 2(3), pp. 74-75. 
1958. Contributions to the knowledge of the alpheid shrimps of the Pacific 

Ocean. Part III. On a small collection from Onotoa, Gilbert Islands. Pacif. 

ScL, vol. 12(2), pp. 157-169, 4 figs. 
1959. Contributions to the knowledge of the alpheid shrimps of the Pacific 

Ocean. Part IV. Various small collections from the central Pacific area, 

including supplementary notes on alpheids from Hawaii. Pacif. Sci., vol. 

13(2), pp. 130-155, 13 figs. 
& D.M. BANNER, 1964. Contributions to the knowledge of the alpheid 

shrimps of the Pacific Ocean. Part IX. Collections from the Phoenix and Line 

Islands. Pacif. Sci., vol. 18(1), pp. 83-100, 5 figs. 
& 1981. The alpheid shrimps of Australia. Part III. The remaining 

alpheids, principally the genus Alpheus, and the family Ogyrididae. Rec. 

Aust. Mus. [In press, scheduled for issue in June, 1981]. 
BARNARD, K.H., 1950. Descriptive catalogue of South African decapod 

Crustacea (crabs and shrimps). Ann. S. Afr. Mus., vol. 38, pp. 1-837, 154 

figs. 
COUTlfeRE, H. , 1897. Note sur quelques especes du genre Alpheus du Musee de 

Leyde. Notes Leyden Mus., vol. 19(23), pp. 195-207. 
1905. Les Alpheidae. In: J.S. Gardiner (ed.). The fauna and geography of the 

Maldive and Laccadive Archipelagoes. Vol. 2(4), p-p. 852-921, pis 70^7, 

text-figs 127-139. University Press, Cambridge, England [Vol. dated 1906]. 
FORSKAL, P., 1775. Descriptiones animalium, avium, amphibiorum, piscium, 

insectorum, vermium; quae in itinere orientali observavit. Haunia: Heineck et 

Faber. {)p.l-19, i-xxxii, 1-164 pp. [Not seen]. 
GUfiRIN-M^NEVILLE, F.E., 1829-44. Iconographie du regne animal de G. 

Cuvier, ou representation d'apres nature de I'une des especes les plus 

remarquables et souvent non encore figurees, de chaque genre d'animaux. 

Avec un texte descriptif mis au courant de la science. Ouvrage pour servir 

d' atlas a tous les traites de zoologie. Vol. 2, Planches des animaux invertebres, 

pis. 1-104; Vol. 3 [?], Crustaces, J.B. Bailliere, Paris, London. 
HOLTHUIS, L.B., 1958. Contributions to the knowledge of the Red Sea. No. 8. 

Crustacea Decapoda from the northern Red Sea (Gulf of Aqaba and Sinai 

Peninsula). I. Macrura. Bull. Sea Fish. Res. Stn., Israel No. 17, pp. 1^0, 

15 figs. 
1961. On the dates of publication of the crustacean plates in Duperry's 

"Voyage autour du monde...sur...La Coquille". Crustaceana, vol. 3(2), 

pp. 168-169. 
1979. A small collection of decapod Crustacea from Galapagos Islands. In: 

Galapagos, studi e ricerche — Spedizione L. Mares — G.R. S.T.S., part ?, 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 303 



pp. 1-11. [Preprint, issued 15 December 1979 of an article in a book to be 

published by the Museo Zoologico del'Universita di Firenze, for the Gruppo 

Ricerche Scientifiche e Tecniche Subacquee (G.R.S.T.S.), Florence, Italy]. 
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, 

1955. [Francis Hemming, ed.]. Opinions and declarations rendered by the 

Internationa! Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Opinion 334. 

Validation under plenary powers, of the generic names Crangon Fabricius 

1798 and Alpheus Fabricius 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), vol. 

10(1), pp. 1-44. 
KINGSLEY, J.S., 1882. Carcinological notes: Number V. Bull. Essex Inst., 

vol. 14, 105-132, pis. 1,2. 
MACNAE. W. & M. KALK, 1969. A natural history of Inhaca Island, 

Mozambique (2nd Ed.), 162 pp, 30 figs., 11 pis. Witwatersrand University 

Press, Johannesburg. [1st Ed. of 1958 not seen]. 
MILNE-EDWARDS, H., 1837. Histoire naturelle des crustaces, comprenant 

I'anatomie, la physiologic et la classification de ces animaux, vol. 2, pp. 1-532. 

Atlas pt. 2. Roret, Paris. 
RANDALL, J.W., 1839. Catalogue of the Crustacea brought by Thomas Nuttall 

and J.K. Townsend, from the west coast of North America and the Sandwich 

Islands, with descriptions of such species as are apparently new, among which 

are included several species of different localities, previously existing in the 

collection of the Academy. J. Acad. not. Sci. Philad., vol. 8(1), pp. 106-147, 

pis. 3-7. 
RATHBUN, M.J., 1904. Some changes in crustacean nomenclature. Proc. biol. 

Soc. Wash., vol. 17. pp. 169-172. 
SHARP, B., 1893. Catalogue of the crustaceans in the Academy of Natural 

Sciences of Philadelphia. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. pp. 104—127. 
STEBBING, T.R., 1915. South African Crustacea (Part VIII). /lwj.S.>l/r. Mus., 

vol. 15, pp. 57-104, pis. 8-25 [of vol. 15, and pi. 77-89 of Crustacea]. 
STEBBING,T.R., 1919. Some Crustacea of Natal. /4«rt. Durban Mus., vol. 2(3), 

pp. 119-125, pis. 18-20. 
URITA, T., 1921. Species and distribution of Natantia found in Kagoshima Bay. 

Zool. Mag., Tokyo, vol. 33, pp. 216-217. 



Comment on the above Application 
By L.B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, Netherlands) 

The identity of Cancer sublucanus Forskal, 1775. — The species was first 
published in P. Forskal's Descriptiones Animaliurn, 1775, a well-known early 
publication on Red Sea animals. Petrus Forskal (1732-1763) took part as a 
zoologist in the 1761-1767 Danish expedition to Arabia and died on 1 1 July 1763 in 
the Yemen. His notes were taken to Denmark by Carsten Niebuhr, the leader and 
sole survivor of the expedition, and it was he who saw to it that the Descriptiones 
Animaliurn were published. Because Forskal had not had the time to work out his 
notes himself, the descriptions of the new species give relatively little 
morphological information and relatively many details on the colour of the live 
animals. Many of the species described by Forskal (especially in fishes, crustaceans 
and other invertebrates) can be recognised from his descriptions, and for those his 
names are widely used. As Crustacea lose their colour when preserved (one of the 



304 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



reasons why Forskal gave so much attention to it in his notes), several of Forskal's 
descriptions could not be correctly interpreted by reference to discoloured museum 
specimens. For this reason, when taking part in the 1962 to 1965 Israeli southern 
Red Sea expeditions, I took with me copies of Forskal's descriptions of those of his 
species of Crustacea whose identity was still doubtful. I made special efforts to 
identify his dubious species (among which was Cancer sublucanus) by comparing 
his descriptions with living animals. In many instances this method proved 
successful and I was often amazed at the accuracy of Forskal's colour descriptions. 

The description of Cancer sublucanus , both in its morphological part (size 1.5 
inches, body compressed, chelae ovate-oblong, compressed and asymmetrical, 
ocular spines present), and in the part dealing with the colour (body reddish, 
dorsally blackish brown, chelae spotted with brown) is such that there can be no 
doubt that Cancer sublucanus is the species also known as Alpheus lottini Guerin. 

2. The nomenclature of the species. — During the last century and a half there 
has never been a period when the nomenclature of the species was stable. From 
1840 to about 1910 it was, as already pointed out by Dr. and Mrs. Banner, most 
commonly called Alpheus laevis Randall, 1840, from about 1910 to 1958 Alpheus 
ventrosus H. Milne Edwards, 1837, and after 1958^. lottini Guerin, 1829. But in 
none of these periods was the usage of one name universal . I know of no use of A. 
ventrosus after 1975, but in 1971 A. sublucanus started to be used. I have counted 
six uses of sublucanus, 23 of lottini, 34 of laevis and 44 of ventrosus. Thus by 
conserving lottini, one would save the least used of the three most widely used 
synonyms oi sublucanus. The fact that ventrosus was used up to 1975 (though much 
less frequently than lottini towards the end of that period) shows that the latter 
name has never gone unchallenged, and that although it has been the name most 
frequently used for the species in the last 25 years, the reintroduction of sublucanus 
in no way upsets a stable situation. 

A. sublucanus has been used at least four times in the modern literature, 
twice in non-systematic papers dealing with reef ecology. I can set at rest the 
Banners' doubts about the identity of Fishelson's animals, as I examined his 
material myself. 

The great advantage of the name sublucanus is its age. Published in 1775, it is 
one of the two oldest names for Alpheid shrimps (the other is Astacus malabaricus 
Fabricius, 1775) and the chance of its being replaced by a still older synonym is very 
small. Its use will therefore finally give stability to the nomenclature of the species, 
which has suffered so much in this respect in the last century and a half. In this case, 
it seems best to adhere to priority and adopt Forskal's name for the species. 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 305 



INDEX TO AUTHORS 



Page 

Banner, A. R 297 

Banner, D.M 297 

Barskov, I.S 92 

Brown, G.H 294 

Carpenter, F.M 285 

Cernohorsky, W.0 237 

Cornelius, P. F.S 208 

Cowan, C.F 228 

Danzig, E.M 79,147 

Dempster, L.J 284 

Domning, D.P 130 

Follett,W.1 284 

Gay, F.J 142 

Hahn,G 6 93 

Heppell,D 163 

Holthuis, L.B 236,237,303 

Huddieston, R.W 161 

Jansson, A 197 

Kerzhner, I.M 6,79,138,147 

205,225,288 

Kozur,H 83,90 

Kuiper,J.G.J 159 

Lane,H.R 86 



Page 

Mathis, W.N 201 

Melville, R.V. (Secretary) 7,10 

16,30,74,93,163,166,168,221,238,283 

Miller, D.R 82 

Mount, J. D 9 

Mroczkowski, M 292 

Pesenko, Y.A 225 

Pettibone, M.H 76 

Presch,W 194 

Robertson, P. L 125 

Savage, J. M 8 

Schremp, L.A 9 

Sealy,D.L.F .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'"286 

Smith, H.M 236 

Spangler, P.J 157 

Starobogatov, Y.I 158 

Stimson, A.F 236 

Thompson, F.C 7 

Waren, A 134 

Watson, J. A. L 142 

Whalley , P 285 

Williams, R.B 156 

Ziegler, W 86 



306 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME 

Opinion Page 

1162 Schizoneura meunieri Heie, 1969 (Insecta: Hemiptera): 
conserved under the plenary powers 49 

1163 Conus moluccensis (Mollusca: Gastropoda) is available as from 
theworkofKiister, 1838 52 

1164 Refusal of request to suppress Calomicrus taeniatus WoUaston, 

1867 (Insecta: Coleoptera) 57 

1165 5c_>'fa/e«/ge/-Daudin, 1803 (Reptilia, Serpentes): suppressed .... 61 

1166 Liparthrum Wollaston, 1854 (Coleoptera, Scolytidae): 
conserved 64 

1167 Phloeosinus Chapuis. 1869 (Coleoptera, Scolytidae): 
conserved 67 

1 168 Cacatua ducorpsii Pucheran, 1853 (Aves): conserved 69 

1169 Cataphractus punctatus Bloch, 1794 (Pisces): lectotype 
designation approved 72 

1170 SATURNIIDAE Boisduval, 1837 (Lepidoptera) placed on 
Official List 95 

1171 The stem of the generic name Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758 
(Pisces) is Petromyzont- 98 

1 172 Ascidia intestinalis Linnaeus, 1767 (Tunicata) conserved 100 

1173 The type species of Hiltermannicythere Bassiouni, 1970 
(Cmstacea, Ostracoda) is Cythereis turbida Miiller, 1894 102 

1174 The type species of Atractocera Meigen, 1803 (Diptera) is 
Tipula regelationis Linnaeus, 1758 105 

1175 Mon5rr///a j>iferw^<i/fl Kriczagin, 1877 (Copepoda) suppressed .. 107 

1176 Echis colorata [sic] Guenther, 1878 (Reptilia, Serpentes) given 
nomenclatural precedence over Echis froenata [sic] Dumeril, 
Bibron & Dumeril, 1854 110 

1177 Cossmmannella Mayer-Eymar, 1896 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) 
designation of type species 112 

1178 Megasternum Mulsant, 1844, and Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 

1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera): type species determined 114 

1179 Polydrusus Germar, 1817 and Phyllobius Germar, 1824 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) : conserved in accordance with current usage 117 

1180 r/iamnop/»7M5 amazo«/cu5 Sclater, 1858 (Aves) conserved 120 

1181 Microdryas Laseron, 1950 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) designation 

of a type species 122 

1182 TETHYIDAE in Mollusca, Porifera and Tunicata: removal of 

the homonymy 1 74 

1183 Terebratula lineata Young & Bird, 1828, and Rhynchonella 
subconcinna Davidson, 1852 (Brachiopoda): designation of 
neotypes 1 78 

1184 Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936, given nomenclatural precedence 

over Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky , 1922 (Nematoda) 182 

1185 Simrothiella Pilsbry, 1898 (Mollusca, Solenogastres): 
designation of a type species 185 

1 186 Tanystropheus H. von Meyer, [1852] (Reptilia) conserved 188 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 307 



1187 Ophiolepis Miiller & Troschel, 1840 (Ophiuroidea): 
designation of type species 191 

1188 Aphis pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841 (Insecta: Hemiptera) 
conserved 239 

1 189 CIRCIN AE in Aves and Mollusca: removal of the homonymy . . 243 

1190 Pterois zebra Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes. 1829 (Pisces, 
Scorpaenidae): placed on tiie official list 247 

1191 Berytus consimilis Horvath, 1855 (Hemiptera, Berytinidae): 
lectotype designation confirmed 249 

1 192 Lecanium acuminatum Signoret, 1873 (Insecta, Homoptera, 
Coccidae): neotype designated 252 

1193 Ceraro/;/j_v5e//a Borner, 1932 (Insecta, Collembola) conserved .. 254 

1194 £.9c/za/-a5/70«g/7e5 Pallas, 1766 (Bryozoa): neotype designated .. 256 

1195 Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Gastropoda): the type species is 
P/eHroctraaa^/fl Rafinesque />? Blainville, 1824 259 

1196 Beyrichia M'Coy, 1846 (Crustacea: Ostracoda): designation of 

type species and of neotype for that species 266 

1 197 Cypraea piperita Gray, 1825, C. comptonii Gray, 1847, C. bicolor 
Gaskoin, 1849 and C. angustata Gmelin, 1791 (Gastropoda): 
placed on the official list 270 

1198 Sminthopsis murina var. constricta Spencer, 1896 
(Mammalia, Marsupialia) suppressed 274 

Direction 

109 Seven family-group names in Insecta, Heteroptera placed on 
official list 276 

110 Ixodes Latreille, 1795 (Arachnida, Acarina): entry in official list 

of generic names confirmed 280 



308 



Bull. zool. Nom., \ol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN 
DECISIONS PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 38. 



Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 



Beyrichia M'Coy, 1846 
Ce//«flNeale, 1793 
Ceratophysella Borner, 1932 
Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1922 
Ciona Fleming, 1822 
Circe Schumacher, 1817 
Circus Lacepede, 1799 
Cossmannella Mayer-Eymar, 1896 
Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 
Ditylenchus ¥'\\i\)']e.\ , 1936 
Dorymenia Heath, 1911 
Gafrarium Roding, 1798 
Hiltermannicythere Bassiouni, 1970 
Ixodes Latreille, 1795 
Kilifia de Lotto, 1965 
Liparthrum Wollaston, 1854 



L/r/rfl«a Haldeman, 1840 
Megasternum Mulsant, 1844 
Microdryas l^asQion, 1950 
Ophiolepis Miiller & Troschel, 1840 
Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758 
Phloeosinus Chapuis, 1869 
Phyllobius Germar, 1824 
Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 
Polydrusus Germar, 1817 
Pyura Molina, 1782 
Saturnia Schrank, 1802 
Simrothiella Pihbry , 1898 
Stylopoma Levinsen, 1909 
Subestea Cotton, 1944 
Tanystropheus H. von Mayer, [1852] 
Tethya Lamarck, [1814] 



Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 



acuminatum, Lecanium, Signoret, 

1873 
acuta, Dorymenia, Heath, 1911 
acutus, Pleurocerus, Rafinesque in 

Blainville, 1824 
aeruginosus, Falco, Linnaeus, 1758 
amazonicus, Thamnophilus, Sclater, 

1858 
angustata, Cypraea, Gmelin, 1791 
armata, Podura, Nicolet, [1842] 
aurantium, Alcyonium, Pallas, 1766 
australiae, Cingula, Frauenfeld, 1867 
bicolor, Cypraea, Gaskoin, 1849 
bituberculatum, Liparthrum, 

Wollaston, 1854 
chilensis, Pyura, Molina, 1782 
cinereiceps, Thamnophilus, Pelzeln, 

1868 
colorata, Echis, Guenther, 1878 
comptonii, Cypraea, Gray, 1847 
consimilis, Berytus, Horvath, 1855 
conspicuus, Tanystropheus, H. von 

Meyer, [1852] 
dipsaci, Anguillula, Kuhn, 1857 
ducorpsii, Cacatua, in Jacquinot & 

Pucheran, 1853 
errata, Lepralia, Walters, 1878 



fajumensis, Cardita, Oppenheim, 

1903 
froenata, Echis, Dumeril, Bibron & 

Dumeril, 1854 
geniculata, Anculosa, Haldeman, 

1840 
grandis. Monstrilla, Giesbrecht, 1891 
intestinalis, Ascidia, Linnaeus, 1767 
iravadioides, Epigrus, Gatliff & 

Gabriel, 1913 
kloedeni, Beyrichia, M'Coy, 1846 
lineata, Terebratula, Young & Bird, 

1828 
longicornis, Monstrilla, Thompson, 

1890 
major, Phalaena pavonia, Linnaeus, 

1758 
margaritaceus, Solenopus, Koren & 

Danielssen, 1877 
marinus, Petromyzon, Linnaeus, 1758 
meunieri, Schizoneura, Heie, 1969 
minutum, Sphaeridium, Fabricius, 

1775 
molluccensis, Conus, Kiister, 1838 
obscurus, Dermestes, Marsham, 1802 
paragracilis, Chitinotylenchus, 

Micoletzky, 1922 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



309 



pectinata, Venus, Linnaeus, 1758 
piperita, Cypraea, Gray, 1825 
punctatus, Cataphractus, Bloch, 1794 
pyri. Aphis, Boyerde Fonscolombe, 

1841 
pyri, Bombyx, Denis & 

Schiffermiiller, 1775 
pyri, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758 
quadridentata, Cythere, Baird, 1850 
regelationis, Tipula, Linnaeus, 1758 
riciniis, Acanis, Linnaeus, 1758 
sarsii, Solenopus, Koren & 

Danielssen, 1877 



scripta, Venus, Linnaeus, 1758 
spongites, Eschara, Pallas, 1766 
subconcinna, Rhynchonella. 

Davidson, 1852 
superba, Ophiolepis, H.L. Clark, 

1915 
taeniatus, Calomicrus, Wollaston, 

1867 
thujae, Hylesinus, Perris, 1855 
tuberculatus, Battus, Kloeden, 1834 
turbida, Cythereis, G.F. Muller, 1894 
undatus, Curculio, Fabricius, 1781 
zebra, Pterois, Cuvier in Cuvier & 

Valenciennes, 1829 



Official List of Family Group Names in 
ANTHOCORIDAE Fieber, 1837 
APLYSIIDAE Swainson. 1840 
ATTACIDAE Duponchel. 1844 
BEYRICHIIDAE Matthew, 1886 
CIMICIDAE Latreilie, [1802] 
CIRCINAE Sundevall, 1836 
GAFRARIINAE Korobkov, 1954 
NABINI Costa, 1852 
NOTONECTIDAE Latreilie, [1802] 
PETROMYZONTIDAE Bonaparte, 
1832 



Zoology 

PHYLLOBIINl Schonherr, 1826 
POLYDROSINI Schonherr, 1823 
PROSTEMMATIDAE Reuter, 1900 
PYURIDAE Hartmeyer, 1908 
REDUVIIDAE Latreilie, 1807 
SATURNIIDAE Boisduval, 1837 
TETHYDIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 
TETHYIDAE J.E. Gray. 1867 
TRIATOMINI Jeanne!, 1919 



Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 
Beyrichia Boll, 1847 Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer, 

Cystioceras Borner in Schille, 1912 [1852] 

Le/parr/jru/« Wollaston, 1854 0/o«f/20g«5/er Motschulsky, 1866 

Tethvum Gunnerus, 1765 



Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 



aquilegiaeflaya. Aphis. Kittel, 1827 
aquilegiae nigra. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 
constricta, Sminthopsis, Spencer, 1896 
ducrops, Plvctolophus, Bonaparte, 

1850 
epilobii, Aphis. Kittel, 1827 
hyosciami. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 
intermedia, Monslrilla, Kriczagin, 1877 
intermedia, Monstrilla, Aurivillius, 1898 
lavaterae. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 
morae. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 
niger, Scytale. Daudin, 1803 
patchi, Schizoneura, Meunier, 1917 
piperis. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 
pyri, Aphis, Vallot, 1802 



pyri. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 

ruficoUis, Thamnophihis, Spix, 1825 

salicis minor. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 
scirpi. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 
sociabile, Tethyum, Gunnerus, 1765 
solani. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 
sonchi pruinosa. Aphis. Kittel, 1827 
sonchi viridifurcata. Aphis, Kittel, 

1827 
verconis, Notocypraea, Cotton & 

Godfrey, 1932 
zebra, Pterois, Quoi& Gaimard, 1825 



310 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 

An;£rd:rFL^b:ril3r ' '"'-'' ^-Hy-^roup Na.es .n Zoology 
Cimicides Latrielle i802] P;o;temm.na Reuter, 1890 

Notonectariae LatreiHe, ^802] S^dt Ra-fX-.Z's 

Ki^et' 1 «97 ' ? ^T"''"^ '"'^ '"^^"^ W°'-'^^ •" Zoology 

^Itelfe?-^".^. t.'',-:.^^^^^^ de ,ue„ues esp.ces 



Bull. zool. Nom., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 311 

INDEX TO KEY NAMES 

Page 

acuminatum, Lecanium, Signoret, 1873 (Opinion 1192) 252 

acuta, Dorymenia, Heath, 1911 (Opinion 1185) 185 

acutus, Pleurocerus, Rafinesque /« Blainville, 1824 (Opinion 1195) 259 

adonidum. Coccus, Linnaeus, 1767 79 

Aeolidiella BQ^gh, 1867 294 

aeruginosus, Falco, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1189) 243 

/l/jMflM//^fldelaLlave, 1832 197 

alderi, Eolis, Cocks, 1852 295 

amazonicus, Thamnophilus, Sclater, 1858 (Opinion 1180) 120 

Anaspis MiiWer , 1764 6 

angustata, Cypraea, Gmelin, 1791 (Opinion 1197) 270 

angustus, Nabis, Spinola, 1837 205 

ANTHOCORID AE Fieber, 1837 (Direction 109) 276 

APATURIDAEBoisduval, 1840 228 

APLYSIIDAESwainson, 1840 (Opinion 1182) 174 

aquilegiae flava, Aphis, Kittel, 1827 (Opinion 1188) 239 

aquilegiae nigra, Aphis, Kittel, 1827 (Opinion 1 188) 239 

arguta, Lacerta, Pallas, 1772 283 

ARGYNNIDAE Duponchel, [1835] 228 

armata, Podura, Nicolet, [1842] (Opinion 1193) 254 

Artemesia \.a.{XQ\\\Q , 1816 237 

Artemia Leach, 1819 237 

ater, Capsus, Jakovlev, 1889 288 

ater, Cimex, Linnaeus, 1758 288 

Atractocera Mt'igQn, 1803 (Opinion 1174) 105 

aurantium, Alcyonium, Pallas, 1766 (Opinion 1182) 174 

aurifacies, Hydrellia, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 201 

australasiae, Tyrophagus, Oudemans, 1906 125 

australiae, Cingula, Frauenfeld, 1867 (Opinion 1181) 122 

australis, Termes, Walker, 1853 142 

Beyrichia Boll, 1847 (Opinion 1196) 266 

Bey richiaW Coy, 1846(Opinion 1196) 266 

BEYRICHIIDAE Matthew, 1886 (Opinion 1196) 266 

bicolor, Cypraea, Gaskoin, 1849 (Opinion 1197) 270 

bituberculatum, Liparthrum, Wollaston, 1854 (Opinion 1166) 64 

bushae, Ledella, Waren, 1978 135 

Campanularia Lamarck, 1816 208 

capsiformis, Nabis, Germar, [1838] 205 

CeWaNeale, 1973 (Opinion 1173) 102 

Ceratophysella Borner, 1932 (Opinion 1193) 254 

chilensis, Pyura, Molina, 1782 (Opinion 1182) 174 

Chitinotylenchus M\co\etzky, 1922 (Opinion 1184) 182 

Chromis Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814 284 

CIMICIDAE Latreille, [1802] (Direction 109) 276 



312 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



cinerea, Nepa, Linnaeus, 1758 138 

cinerekeps, Thamnophilus, Pelzeln, 1868 (Opinion 1 180) 120 

Oo/ja Fleming, 1822 (Opinion 1172) 100 

C/rce Schumacher, 1817 (Opinion 1189) 243 

C/rcM5 Lacepede, 1799 (Opinion 1189) 243 

Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 208 

CoccM5 Linnaeus, 1758 147 

coffeae, Pediculus, Linnaeus, 1767 79 

comptonii, Cypraea, Gray, 1847 (Opinion 1 197) 270 

consimilis, Berytus, Horvath, 1855 (Opinion 1191) 249 

conspicuus, Tanystropheiis, H. von Meyer, [1825] (Opinion 1186) 188 

Come//a Lundblad, 1928 197 

corni, Lecanium, Bouche, 1844 149 

coryli, Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758 148 

Cossmannella May cx-^ymax , 1896 (Opinion 1177) 112 

colorata, Echis [sic] Guenther, 1878 (Opinion 1 176) 1 10 

Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 (Opinion 1178) 114 

CYCLADIDAE Rafinesque, 1820 159 

Cyc/as Bruguiere, 1798 159 

Cystioceras Borner /n Schille, 1912 (Opinion 1193) 254 

darwinii, Pholas, G.B. Sowerby H, 1849 9 

dimidiatus, Acarus, Hermann, 1804 125 

dipsaci, Anguillula, Kuhn 1857 (Opinion 1184) 182 

Ditylenchus, Filipjev, 1936 (Opinion 1184) 182 

ducorpsii, Cacatua, Pucheran, 1853 (Opinion 1 168) 69 

ducrops, Plyctolophus, Bonaparte , 1850 (Opinion 1 168) 69 

Ephydra¥a\\€n, 1810 201 

EPHYDRINAE Zetterstedt, 1837 201 

epilobii, Aphis, Kittel, 1827 (Opinion 1188) 239 

Eremias Wiegmann, 1834 283 

Eulecanium Cockerel!, 1893 148 

exitiosus, Eutermes, Hill, 1925 142 

exunguis, Manatus (Natterer in Diesing, 1839) 130 

fajumensis, Cardita, Oppenheim, 1903 (Opinion 1177) 112 

femorata, Corixa, Guerin-Meneville, 1857 197 

flaviceps, Notiphila, Meigen, 1830 201 

flexuosa, Laomedea, Alder, 1857 209 

froenata, Echis [sic], Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854 (Opinion 1176) . 110 

Gfl/ranMm Roding, 1798 (Opinion 1189) 243 

geniculata, Anculosa (Lithasia), Haldeman, 1840 (Opinion 1195) 259 

gigas, Manati, Zimmermann, 1780 130 

Gnathodus, Pander, 1856 83 

grandis, Monstrilla, Giesbrecht, 1891 (Opinion 1 175) 107 

hesperidum. Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758 147 

Hiltermannicy there, Bassiouni , 1970 (Opinion 1 173) 102 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 313 



HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 201 

Hydrodamalis, Retzius, 1794 130 

hyosciami, Aphis, Kittel, 1827 (Opinion 1188) 239 

intermedia, Monstrilla, Kriczagin, 1877 (Opinion 1 175) 107 

intermedia, Monstrilla, Aurivillius, 1898 (Opinion 1 175) 107 

intestinalis, Ascidia, Linnaeus, 1767 (Opinion 1172) 100 

iravadioides, Epigrus, Gatliff & Gabriel, 1913 (Opinion 1181) 122 

Ixodes LaireiWe, 1795 (Direction 110) 280 

johnstoni, Campanularia, Alder, 1856a 212 

kentukensis, Monoclina, Rafinesque, 1822 236 

Kilifia de Lotto, 1965 (Opinion 1192) '. 252 

kloedeni, Beyrichia, M'Coy, 1846 (Opinion 1196) 266 

Krizousacorixa Hungerford , 1 930 197 

Laomedea, Lamouroux, 1812 208 

lavaterae. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 (Opinion 1188) 239 

Lecfl«/«m Burmeister, 1835 148 

Ledella, Verrill & Bush, 1897 134 

Leiparthrum Woliaston, 1854 (Opinion 1166) 64 

LIMENITIDINAE Butler, [1870] 228 

lineata, Terebratula, Young & Bird, 1828 (Opinion 1183) 178 

Liparthrum Woliaston,, 1854 (Opinion 1166) 64 

Lithasia \\a\dcman, 1840 (Opinion 1195) 259 

longicornis, Monstrilla, Thompson, 1890 (Opinion 1175) 107 

longior, Tyrophagiis, Gervais, 1844 125 

longispinus, Dactylopius, Targioni-Tozzetti , 1867 79 

lottini, Alpheus, Guerin, 1829 297 

lucida, Yoldia, Loven, 1846 135 

lyncuriiim, Alcyoniiim, Linnaeus, 1767 (Opinion 1182) 174 

Macroscelosaurus H. von Meyer [1852] (Opinion 1186) 188 

madagascariensis, Langaha, Bonnaterra, 1790 8 

Manati SteWer , \11A 130 

margaritaceus, Solenopus, Koren & Danielssen, 1877 (Opinion 1185) ... 185 

marginata, Semhlis, Fabricius, 1793 221 

marginata, Semblis, Panzer, 1799 221 

murinus, Petromyzon, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1171) 98 

Marthamea Klapalek, 1907 223 

Megasternum Mulsant, 1844 (Opinion 1178) 114 

mercenaria, Corixia, Say, 1832 197 

METRIDIIDAE Gosse, 1858 156 

meunieri, Schizoneura, Heie, 1969 (Opinion 1162) 49 

Microdryas Laseron, 1950 (Opinion 1181) 122 

MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976 157 

M icrosporus Kolenati, 1846 157 

minutissima. Apis, Rossi, 1790 225 

minutum, Sphaeridium, Fabricius, 1775 (Opinion 1178) 114 



314 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



moluccensis, Conus, Kiister, 1838 (Opinion 1 163) 52 

morae. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 (Opinion 1188) 239 

morys, Pteromalus, Walker, 1848 75 

munnawar. constricta, Sminthopsis, Spencer, 1896 (Opinion 1198) 274 

NABINI Costa, 1852 (Direction 109) 276 

nasica, Tr/oAJv^, Rafinesque, 1822 236 

Netastoma Carpenter, 1864 9 

Nettastomella Carpenter, 1865 9 

neuwiedii, Scytale, var. nigrum, Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854 

(Opinion 1165) 61 

niger, Scytale, Daudin, 1803 (Opinion 1165) 61 

A^om/o/de^Schenck, 1866 225 

Notonectariae Latreille [1802] (Direction 109) 276 

NOTONECTIDAE Latreille [1802] (Direction 109) 276 

obscunis, Dermestes, Marsham, 1802 (Opinion 1 178) 114 

obsidianus, Microsporus, Kolenati, 1846 157 

Olonthogaster Motschulsky , 1866 (Opinion 1 167) 67 

Ommateremias, Lantz, 1928 283 

Op/jJo/epwMiiller&Troschel, 1840 (Opinion 1187) 191 

paragracilis, Chitinotylenchus, Micoletzky, 1922 (Opinion 1184) 182 

Parthenolecanium §ulc, 1908 147 

patchi, Schizoneura, Meunier, 1917 (Opinion 1 162) 49 

pavonia major, Phalaena (Bombyx), Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1170) .... 95 

pectinata, Ve««5, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1189) 243 

permianus, rwpiw [sic], Sellards, 1906 285 

Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1171) 98 

PETROMYZONTIDAE Bonaparte, 1832 (Opinion 1171) 98 

Phloeosinus Chapuis, 1869 (Opinion 1 167) 67 

PHYLLOBIINI Schonherr. 1826 (Opinion 1179) 117 

Phyllobius Germar, 1824 (Opinion 1179) 117 

picipes, Byrrhus, Olivier, 1790 292 

piperis. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 (Opinion 1188) 239 

piperita, C>'praea, Gray, 1825 (Opinion 1197) 270 

PISIDIIDAE Gray, 1857 159 

P/eMrocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Opinion 1195) 259 

POLYDROSINI Schonherr, 1823 (Opinion 1179) 117 

PolydrususGermar, 1817 (Opinion 1179) 117 

PROSTEMMATID AE Reuter , 1900 (Direction 109) 276 

Prostemmina Renter, 1890 (Direction 109) 276 

pulchella, Andrena, Jurine, 1807 225 

punctatus, Cataphractus, Bloch, 1794 (Opinion 1169) 72 

pura, Xenocrepis, Mayr , 1904 74 

pyri. Aphis, Vallot, 1802 (Opinion 1188) 239 

pyri. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 (Opinion 1188) 239 

pyri. Aphis, Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841 (Opinion 1188) 239 

pyri, Bombyx [Denis & Schiffermiiller] , 1775 (Opinion 1170) 95 

pyri, Cwrcu/Zo, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1179) 117 

PYURIDAE Hartmeyer, 1908 (Opinion 1182) 175 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 315 



quadridentata, Cythere, Baird, 1850 (Opinion 1 173) 102 

quadripunctatus, Lygaeus, Fabricius, 1794 289 

REDUVIIDAE Latreille, 1807 (Direction 109) 276 

Reduvini Latreille, 1807 (Direction 109) 276 

regelationis, Tipula, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1174) 105 

ricinus, Acariis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Direction 110) 280 

riparia, Ephydra, Fallen, 1813 201 

rivicola, Cyclas, Lamarck, 1818 159 

rubra, Nepa, Linnaeus, 1758 138 

ruficollis, Thamnophilus, Spix, 1825 (Opinion 1180) 120 

rufipes, Byrrhus, J.G. Kugelann, 1792 292 

salicis minor. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 (Opinion 1188) 239 

sarsii, Solenopus, Koren & Danielssen, 1877 (Opinion 1185) 185 

Saturnia Schrank, 1802 (Opinion 1170) 95 

SATURNIIDAE Boisduval, 1837 (Opinion 1170) 95 

scirpi. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 (Opinion 1188) 239 

scripta, Ve«M5, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1189) 243 

seminodosa, Alvania, May, 1916 (Opinion 1181) 122 

semistriatus, Byrrhus, Fabricius, 1794 292 

sibiricus, Deraeocoris, Kiritshenko, 1914 288 

Simrothiella Pilsbry, 1898 (Opinion 1185) 185 

sociabile, 7^r/iywm, Gunnerus, 1765 (Opinion 1172) 100 

soemmeringii, Aeolidiella, Bergh, 1882 294 

soemmerringii, Eolida, F.S. Leuckart. 1828 294 

solani. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 (Opinion 1188) 239 

sonchi pruinosa, Aphis, Kittel, 1827 (Opinion 1188) 239 

sonchi viridifurcata. Aphis, Kittel, 1827 (Opinion 1188) 239 

Sphaeriastrum Bourguignat, 1854 159 

SPHAERIIDAE Erichson, 1845 159 

SPHAERIIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 159 

5/7/jamM5Waltl, 1858 157 

spongites, Eschara, Pallas, 1766 (Opinion 1 194) 256 

Stylopoma Levinsen, 1909 (Opinion 1194) 256 

subconcinna, Rhynchoneila, Davidson, 1852 (Opinion 1183) 178 

Subestea Cotton, 1944 (Opinion 1181) 122 

sublucanus, Cancer, Forskal, 1775 297 

superba, Ophiolepis, H.L. Clark, 1915 (Opinion 1187) 191 

taeniatus, Calomicrus, Wollaston, 1867 (Opinion 1 164) 57 

Ta«y5/ro/7/2eM5 H. von Meyer, [1852] (Opinion 1186) 188 

teguixin, Lacerta, Linnaeus, 1758 194 

TEIIDAEGray, 1827 194 

re/M5Merrem, 1820 194 

Tef/jyaLamarck, [1814] (Opinion 1182) 174 

TETHYDIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (Opinion 1182) 174 

Tethyidae Rafinesque, 1815, (Opinion 1182) 175 

TETHYIDAEJ.E. Gray, 1867 (Opinion 1182) 174 

Tethyidae Huntsman, 1912 (Opinion 1182) 175 



316 Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



re/Ziyj Linnaeus, 1767 (Opinion 1182) 174 

Tethyum Gunnerus, 1765 (Opinion 1182) 174 

texanus, Gnathodus, Roundy, 1926 86 

teyou, Lacerta, Daudin, 1802 194 

thujae, Hylesinus, Perns, 1855 (Opinion 1167) 67 

tiliae. Coccus, Linnaeus, 1758 148 

TRIATOMINI Jeannel, 1919 (Direction 109) 276 

tuberculatus, Battus, Kloeden, 1834 (Opinion 1196) 266 

TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825 194 

Tupinambis T>ai\xdm, 1802 194 

TMpus Sellards, 1906 285 

TYPIDAE Handlirsch. 1919 285 

rypw5 Sellards, 1909 285 

TYROPHAGIDAE Oudemans, 1924 129 

Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924 125 

undatus, Curculio, Fabricius, 1781 (Opinion 1179) 117 

variolaris, Calymene, Brongniart, 1822 6 

velox, Lacerta, Pallas, 1771 283 

vitripennis, Perla, Burmeister, 1839 222 

volubilis, Sertularia, Linnaeus, 1758 209 

Xenocrepis Foerster , 1856 74 

yoW/e//a Verrill «& Bush, 1897 135 

zebra, Pterois, Quoy & Gaimard, 1825 (Opinion 1 190) 247 

zebra, Pterois, Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829 (Opinion 1190). . 247 



Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 



317 



CORRIGENDA 



Vol. 30 

page 143, paragraph 9, line 4: 

Vol. 37 

page 78, lines 16-17: 

page 217, lines 21-22: 

page 263, line 39: 
page V, line 9: 

Vol. 38 

page 54, Opinion 1163: 



page 100, line 24: 
page 102, line 23: 



for Name No. 456 read Name No. 465. 



read 'Ophioderma Miiller & Troschel, 

1840 (gender: neuter)'. 

for 'Consid. gen. panic. Crust. Ins. ' read 

'Hist. not. gen. panic. Crust. Ins. '. 

for 'Candez' read 'Candeze'. 

for 'Musicicapa' read 'Muscicapa'. 



Hahn should have been recorded as cast- 
ing a negative vote in Part 1 and Part 2. 
Habe should not have been recorded as 
casting a negative vote in Part 1. The re- 
sult of the Vote is not affected, 
for 'Sneling' read 'Sneli'. 
for 'G.F. Miiller, 1894' read 'G.W. 
Muller, 1894' 



PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL 
PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED 



Part No. 



Contents of Part 
(pages) 

1- 76 

77-152 

153-228 

229-318 



Date of Publication 



26 February 1981 
30 April 1981 
30 July 1981 
30 November 1981 



318 ' Bull. zool. Norn., vol 38, pt 4, November 1981 

INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER 



The present volume should be bound up as follows: 
1— 318, T.P.I -vin 



Note: The wrappers (covers) of the four parts should be 
bound in at the end of the volume. 



Readers of the Bulletin are reminded that the main regular source of 
income to finance the work of the Commission comes from sales of 
this periodical, and that this is insufficient to meet the needs of 
zoologists for the services provided by the Commission and to 
maintain the office at an efficient level. Help in the form of 
donations and bequests will, therefore, be received with gratitude. 

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to 
express its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of 
the British Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the 
Commission. 



' 1981 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 
Printed in England by INPRINT OF LUTON (Designers & Printers) LTD.